BINABEN JAYESHBHAI GOR,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1, VAPI, VAPI

ITA 1456/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 March 2026AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting repeated non-compliance, imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee. Subject to this payment, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide another opportunity for the assessee to furnish evidence for the cash deposits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened for unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 17.59 lakhs. After an ex-parte assessment and a previous remand by the Tribunal, the AO again made the addition, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the addition for unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A. A secondary issue concerned the assessee's repeated failure to comply with requests for evidence despite multiple opportunities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 254,Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 272A(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Pandya, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, SR-DR
Hearing: 03.03.2026Pronounced: 10.03.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 06.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13 in the proceeding u/s 144 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act.

2.

This is the second round of appeal before us. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed her return of income for A.Y. 2012- 13 on 01.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.15,48,780/-. The case of the assessee was reopened to examine cash deposit of Rs.17,59,000/- in the bank account. In the course of original assessment, no compliance Binaben Jayeshbhai Gor Vs. ITO, AY-

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →