BABY KUMARI,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), RANCHI

PDF

ITA 373/RAN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed her bank account and the copy of I.T.return of her husband Shri Amrit Charan Singh and explained the source of investments appearing in the name of the assessee. It was submitted that the amount of investment was mostly out of the amount given to her by her husband. However, the Assessing Officer without appreciating the said fact passed the assessment order u./s.144 and made the addition. It was the submission that during the course of first ap1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee's appeal is against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order under section 144 due to non-compliance by the assessee. The assessee claims that notices were misplaced and not served, and that the investment source was from her husband.

Held

The tribunal noted that there was no representation before the AO and CIT(A). However, to ensure justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association.

Key Issues

Whether the appeal can be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication given the previous non-compliance and lack of representation before lower authorities.

Sections Cited

144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Chowdhary, Adv

For Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR hri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR

Hearing: 11/06/202Pronounced: 11/06

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Baby Baby Kumari, Kumari, W/O W/O Amrit Amrit Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward- Charan Charan Singh, Singh, A A-66/A2, 1(2), Ranchi 1(2), Ranchi Harmu Harmu Housing Housing Colony, Colony, Behind State Bank of India, Behind State Bank of India, Ranchi PAN/GIR No. .AMM[L 0110 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.K.Chowdhary, Adv K.Chowdhary, Adv Revenue by Revenue by :Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR hri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 11/06/202 2025 Date of Pronouncement :11/06/ /2025 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)- Ranchidated 27.6.2018 27.6.2018 in Appeal No.CITA(a),Ranchi/10440/2016 CITA(a),Ranchi/10440/2016-17 for the assessment year 2014 2014-15.

Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR hri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue and Shri appeared for the revenue and Shri M.K.Chowdhary,ld AR appeared for the assessee. ld AR appeared for the assessee.

P a g e 1 | 3

it was submitted by ld AR that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed her bank account and the copy of I.T.return of her husband Shri Amrit Charan Singh and explained the source of investments appearing in the name of the assessee. It was submitted that the amount of investment was mostly out of the amount given to her by her husband. However, the Assessing Officer without appreciating the said fact passed the assessment order u./s.144 and made the addition. It was the submission that during the course of first appellate proceedings, no notice were served upon the assessee, therefore, the details of documentary proof could not be produced. He prayed that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee will furnish the necessary documentary evidence to prove the claim.