SUNITA S. AEREN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 18, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have granted more time to the assessee to furnish the required details. The appeal is therefore restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee could not furnish evidence for cash deposits and a deduction claim because her documents were in a sealed premises. The lower authorities did not grant her sufficient time to produce these documents.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities erred by not granting sufficient time to the assessee to produce evidence for cash deposits and a deduction claim.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C. N. PRASAD
ORDER PER C. N. PRASAD, JM :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT (A)-27, New Delhi dated 8/2/2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. “The Hon'ble CIT (A) has not followed the law and natural justice while confirming additions and disallowances by the Ld. A.0.
2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition on account of cash deposits of Rs. 5,65,500/- in the state Bank of India.
3. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts by confirming disallowance of deduction claimed U/s 80C of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to Para 4.2 and 5.1 of the Ld.CIT(A)’s order submits that the assessee could not furnish the evidences before the Appellate authority and also during assessment proceedings explaining the sources for cash deposits made into her bank account for the reason that the relevant documents are lying in the premises of RED Mall, Ghaziabad, which is sealed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The Ld. Counsel submits that in-fact the assessee has requested time to produce the relevant documents. However, the authorities below did not grant the assessee time for furnishing the relevant documents. The Ld. Counsel submits that the matter may be sent back to the file of the Ld.CIT (A) for reconsideration of the request of the assessee and the assessee will furnish the relevant documents explaining the sources for the cash deposits.
3. Considering the rival submissions and on going through the records before me I ma of the opinion that the Ld.CIT(A) should have granted more time to the assessee to furnish the details. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) who shall disposed off the appeal on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
More judgments on Section 80C
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Amit Kumar Rai, Ramnagar, West Champaran vs Income Tax Officer, Bettiah, BiharITA 223/PAT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), RajkotITA 366/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(5), RajkotITA 257/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Trinath Mandal, Koriya vs ITO, Ward-1(1), BilaspurITA 717/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026