ANAND NISHAD,KATNI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATNI

ITA 70/JAB/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Anand Nishad against the order of the CIT (Appeals) which confirmed an addition of Rs.14,01,000/- to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2012-13. The addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of 'unexplained money'. The CIT (Appeals) had deleted an earlier addition of Rs.12,24,000/- but upheld the addition of Rs.14,01,000/-. The assessee contested this addition, arguing that the source of the cash received was established and thus the addition was unjustified. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that further verification was needed and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 846071 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Jabalpur
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N.M.; PRASAD; .
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN PUROHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR [Virtual Hearing] BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.70/Jab/2025 Assessment year:2012-13 Anand Nishad, Venkat Ward Near Khirahani Pathak, Katni - 483501 PAN:ARLPN 3287E Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jabalpur Road Near Collectorate Katni (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R This appeal vide I.T.A. No.70/Jab/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 against impugned appellate order dated 22/01/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072422162(1) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT 1 (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1401000/. The addition should be deleted. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has overlooked the fact that advance received in cash. the source was established. Hence the addition may kindly be ordered to be deleted. Appellant by Shri Nitin Purohi, Advocate Respondent by Shri N.M., Prasad, Sr. D.R.-1 Printed from counselvise.com 2 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the cash deposit is 3 fully explainable. thus the addition is unjustified. same should be deleted in toto. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case the finding of Ld. CIT (Appeals) is erroneous and not justified. thus the addition on account of unexplained investments may kindly be ordered to be deleted. 5. That the appellant craves the right to raise additional ground/grounds and to produce additional evidences with the permission of Hon'ble Bench.” 2. In this case, assessment order dated 25.11.2019 was passed under section (u/s.) 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) whereby assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.27,91,100/- as against returned income of Rs.1,66,100/-. In the aforesaid assessment order additions of Rs.12,24,000/- (on account of ‘Long Term Capital Gain’) and Rs.14,01,000/- (u/s. 69A of the Act on account of ‘unexplained money’) were made. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order eas partly allowed by the learned CIT(A) vide aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 22.01.2025. The learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition of Rs.12,24,000/-, but confirmed the aforesaid addition of Rs.14,01,000/-. Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 22.01.2025 of learned CIT(A). 3. On perusal of the records and the reasons pleaded by the appellant assessee before learned CIT(A) explaining the reasons for delay in filing of appeal, I am satisfied that appellant assessee had reasonable cause to explain the delay in filing of appeal before the learned CIT(A). It is held that this was a fit case for condonation of delay in filing of appeal by the learned CIT(A). 4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representatie (DR) of Revenue, both; were in Printed from counselvise.com 3 agreement that the factual matrix as available in the records are not sufficient for deciding the issue regarding the aforesaid additions of Rs.14,01,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Both were in agreement that this matter requires further verification at the end of the Assessing Officer after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the matter in dispute regarding said addition of Rs.14,01,000/- is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass denovo order on this specific issue, in accordance with law, after making necessary verifications and after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 23.03.2026) Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Dated 23.03.2026 Aks/- Printed from counselvise.com 4 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Printed from counselvise.com "