BABY KUMARI,RANCHI V. ITO, WARD-1(2), RANCHI

ITA 373/RAN/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Baby Kumari against the order of the CIT(A) dated 27.6.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention revolves around the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer, which was based on non-compliance and non-response to notices. The assessee argued that the investments in her name were sourced from her husband, Amrit Charan Singh, and that she had provided her bank account details and her husband's IT return to substantiate this. However, due to alleged non-receipt of notices, she could not present documentary evidence at the appellate stage. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to present her case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633162 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PER BENCH; KHUBCHANDT PANDYA; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: M.K.CHOWDHARY

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORES/ AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Baby Kumari, W/O Amrit Charan Singh, A Harmu Housing Colony, Behind State Bank of India, Ranchi PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Revenue by Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) Ranchidated 27.6.2018 assessment year 2014 2. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR M.K.Chowdhary,ld AR appeared for the assessee. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.373/RAN/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Baby Kumari, W/O Amrit Charan Singh, A-66/A2, Harmu Housing Colony, Behind State Bank of India, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Ranchi .AMM[L 0110 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri M.K.Chowdhary, Adv Revenue by :Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 11/06/202 Date of Pronouncement :11/06/ O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) 27.6.2018 in Appeal No.CITA(a),Ranchi/10440/2016 2014-15. hri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue and Shri ld AR appeared for the assessee. P a g e 1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2), Ranchi Respondent) K.Chowdhary, Adv hri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR 2025 /2025 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)- CITA(a),Ranchi/10440/2016-17 for the appeared for the revenue and Shri ITA No.373/RAN/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 P a g e 2 | 3 3. it was submitted by ld AR that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed her bank account and the copy of I.T.return of her husband Shri Amrit Charan Singh and explained the source of investments appearing in the name of the assessee. It was submitted that the amount of investment was mostly out of the amount given to her by her husband. However, the Assessing Officer without appreciating the said fact passed the assessment order u./s.144 and made the addition. It was the submission that during the course of first appellate proceedings, no notice were served upon the assessee, therefore, the details of documentary proof could not be produced. He prayed that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee will furnish the necessary documentary evidence to prove the claim. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR objected to the remitting the matter back to the file of the AO. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act as there was no compliance before him. Even, there was no response to the notices issued by the ld CIT(A). Before us, ld AR is claiming that notices were misplaced somewhere and not served upon the assessee. It was claimed that the detailed address of the assessee was given in manual Form No.35 attached with e-filed appeal. Be that it may, as there was no representation before the AO as well as the ld CIT(A), facts could not be culled out for consideration of the addition made by the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are ITA No.373/RAN/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 P a g e 3 | 3 restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days from the date of this order and receipt of the same to be presented before the AO at the first date of hearing. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 11/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 11/06/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellant : Baby Kumari, W/O Amrit Charan Singh, A-66/A2, Harmu Housing Colony, Behind State Bank of India, Ranchi 2. The respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2), Ranchi 3. The CIT(A)-Ranchi 4. Pr.CIT,Ranchi 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "