AVINANDITA MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , BHUABENSWAR

ITA 366/CTK/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Avinandita Mohanty, the appellant, who contested an assessment order under sections 153A and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which added unexplained income and investment to her taxable income for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. Initially, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted at her premises, leading to the filing of a revised return of income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which prompted the appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, due to inconsistencies in the amounts challenged in different stages of the appeal process, the tribunal dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds without addressing the substantive issues of unexplained income and investment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772061 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 139

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 366/CTK/2025 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Avinandita Mohanty 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-CUTTACK ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 366/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Avinandita Mohanty,………………...….………Appellant Plot No. 130, M/s. S.M. Consultants, SM Tower, Mancheswar Industrial Area, Bhubaneswawr-751010, Odisha [PAN:BAZPM0561N] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar, Aayakar Bhawan Anne, Bhubaneswar-751007, Odisha Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT (D.R.), appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: August 20, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar-2 dated 28th April, 2025 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 366/CTK/2025 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Avinandita Mohanty 2 2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned by the assessee before the Tribunal are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted at premises of the assessee on 20.10.2016. The assessee had filed return of income under section 139 on 29.08.2012 to the tune of Rs.2,98,388/-. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee filed return of income on 21.08.2018 in response to notice under section 153A of I.T. Act for A.Y. 2012-13 by disclosing an amount of Rs.3,30,690/-. The return dated 21.08.2018 was subjected to scrutiny and assessment order under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed by making addition of Rs.3,21,210/ as unexplained income and Rs.19,35,000/- as unexplained investment. Against the assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal under section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar-2 has dismissed the appeal. On being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. From the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before us, it is seen that the assessee has challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in confirming the wrong figure of Rs.19,35,000/- instead of correct figure of Rs.18,00,000/- as cash deposit, which was treated by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as unexplained investment. But in the appellate proceedings, against the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the ld. Counsel challenged for confirming the addition of Rs.12,50,385/- shown as unexplained investment. Naturally there Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 366/CTK/2025 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Avinandita Mohanty 3 is a disparity in variation in amounts in between the figure as mentioned in the appellate proceedings and in the grounds of appeal filed in ITAT. It seems that the assessee is totally confused to challenge before the ITAT the exact figure of the amount as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as unexplained investment. Therefore, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that as the assessee was not able to raise the correct amount for challenging in the appellate stage as well as before the ITAT as claimed, therefore, there is no need to pass the order being disparity of amount in the defective grounds of appeal involved at this stage. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are being dismissed being defective grounds of appeal are involved. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Accountant Member Vice-President Kolkata, the 25th day of August, 2025 Copies to :(1) Avinandita Mohanty, Plot No. 130, M/s. S.M. Consultants, SM Tower, Mancheswar Industrial Area, Bhubaneswawr-751010, Odisha (2) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar, Aayakar Bhawan Anne, Bhubaneswar-751007, Odisha Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 366/CTK/2025 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Avinandita Mohanty 4 (3) CIT(A), Bhubaneswwar-2; (4) CIT - ; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S. Printed from counselvise.com "