SHALINI SRIVASTAVA,HALDWANI vs. WARD 2(1)(1) HALDWANI/, HALDWANI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed under section 144/144B due to the assessee's non-compliance. The CIT(A) had not admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A, upholding the additions made by the AO. The assessee requested another opportunity to present details to the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return declaring income from house property and "other sources", claiming set-off against business losses, resulting in NIL total income. The return was selected for scrutiny, and despite notices, the assessee failed to comply, leading to an assessment under section 144 at a significantly higher income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions under Section 68 by not considering the merits of the case and disallowing additional evidence under Rule 46A?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 68,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Year :2019-20] Shalini Srivastava vs Ward-2(1)(1) Sheeshmahal, Opp. Haldwani Filter House, Uttarakhand Kathgodam, Haldwani, Uttarakhand-263139 PAN-APYPS8567D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Prashant Kackar, CA Revenue by Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.07.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10096852 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed her return of income, declaring income from house property of INR 51,754/- and income under the head “other sources” of INR 17,56,736/-. The total income of INR 18,08,490/- was claimed as set off against the current year losses from business and profession of INR 31,04,998/- and thus total income at INR NIL was declared after claiming of deduction under Chapter VIA of INR 1,56,918/-. The return of income was selected for complete scrutiny. Notices u/s 143(2) followed by notices u/s 142(1) were issued from time to time which were not complied with. In absence of any reply by the assessee, order was passed u/s 144 as per information available and total income of the assessee was assessed at INR 13,32,38,065/- by making various addition.
Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 08.07.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:-
1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in confirming the addition U/s 68 of the Act amounting to 13,32,38,065.00 against facts and law.
2. The Appellant respectfully, submits as under:-
1. 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT-A) has without going into the facts and not relying on the practicality of the case has sustained the additions without going into the merits of the case stating the submissions were not made before Ld. AO and Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) were not followed.
2. That the order is bad in law, not in agreement with facts and is against the principles of natural justice.
3. The Appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend, and/OR to modify any Grounds of Appeal, if necessary.”
5. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen that assessment order was passed u/s 144/144B of the Act as the assessee failed to make any compliance before the AO and accordingly, AO has proceeded to make the additions of the deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee has filed additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) however, Ld. CIT(A) at page 15 of the order, observed that assessee has not filed any application or affidavit under Rule 46A of the Rules for the admission of the additional evidences therefore, he has not admitted the same and confirmed the additions made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before us, it was the claim of the assessee that all the documents were submitted before Ld. CIT(A) explaining the source of deposits as well as income which were held as unexplained and added to the hands of the assessee. It was further submitted that one more opportunity be provided to the assessee for filing all the relevant details before the AO to explain the nature and source of the entries in the bank account.
After considering the request and in the larger interest of justice, we set aside both the order of the lower authorities and remand the issue to the file of AO with direction to pass the order denovo fresh after considering the submissions made by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear and participate in the assessment proceedings and to file all the necessary details to the satisfaction of the AO. With these directions, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.12.2025.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
