MAHADEVI YALLINGAPPA DALAVAYI,GOKAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 GOKAK, GOKAK

PDF

ITA 18/PAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 July 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO but has sustained the action of the A.O and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee deposited Rs. 20,97,500/- cash in a bank account which the Assessing Officer (AO) added under Section 69A, rejecting the assessee's explanation of agricultural land sale. The AO also made an addition for rental income. The CIT(A) sustained these additions, leading the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal.

Held

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard and by overlooking evidence, especially regarding the sale of agricultural land. The CIT(A) merely relied on the AO's findings without considering the assessee's submissions. The matter was thus restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring due process.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) was correct in sustaining additions under Section 69A and dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity of hearing and considering the evidence submitted by the assessee.

Sections Cited

143(3), 250, 69A, 143(2), 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Hearing: 28.07.2025Pronounced: 29.07.2025

Assessee by Shri.Mahesh Udadar.AR Revenue by Smt.Rijula Uniyal. Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 28.07.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 ORDER

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:

The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of the NFAC Delhi/CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal

challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition u/sec 69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 2.08.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.3,10,660/- and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS. The 2025. Mahadevi Yallingappa Dalavayi. Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data found that, the assesse has made cash deposits in the savings bank account with Corporation Bank Gokak aggregating to Rs.20,97,500/- in the F.Y.2016-17 and the notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act are issued to furnish the details and sources of cash deposits. The assesse has filed the explanations and details mentioning the sources and particulars of sale of agricultural lands situated at pamaldinni village for a consideration of Rs.20,87,000/- on 14-03-2016 dealt at Para 4 & 5 of the order. Whereas the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of the Act and made addition u/sec69A of the Act of Rs.20,97,500/- and also made addition of rental income of Rs.1,97,940/-and finally assessed the total income of Rs.26,06,100/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 25.12.2019.

Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO but has sustained the action of the A.O and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.