Mrs. Ranjana, Mrizapur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 505/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)
For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69
…in law. 3. The impugned appellate order was passed in undue haste without affording a meaningful opportunity of hearing or calling for additional evidence, thereby violating Section 250 (6) and principles of natural justice [Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE, 281 CTR 241 (SC)]. 4. The addition of ₹6,00,000/- Cash Deposit was made without seeking clarification or allowing submission of evidence. Had the opportunity been granted, the appellant would have established the source of funds. 5. The addition of ₹1,00,000/-, received from Shri Dhananjay Singh as a friendly loan, was unjustified, as the transaction was ful…
