BALIKA SUBHASH PAWAR,MUNSHIWADA ,KILLA ROAD MAHAL V. DCIT/ACIT CENCIR 1(1),NAG, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, TELANKHEDI ROAD,CIVIL LINES,NAGPUR

ITA 737/NAG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Balika Subhash Pawar, the appellant, who challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2022-23. The additions were based on unexplained money amounting to 5,00,000 and 1,95,000, respectively, which were allegedly linked to transactions in a joint bank account held by the assessee and her husband. The assessee argued that these transactions were already accounted for in the audited books of her husband's sole proprietorship, M/s. Jai Bhavani Bullion Touch. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the best judgment assessment made due to the assessee's non-response to notices, decided to remand the matter back to the JAO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835224 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJIT KUMAR SAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND MEHTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR (through virtual) BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.737 & 738/NAG/2025 (Assessment Years : 2021-22 & 2022-23) Balika Subhash Pawar, 312-C, Munshiwada, Killa Road Mahal, Nagpur. PAN : BCRPP 8782 J vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anand Mehta, CA For Revenue : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 04.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 ORDER These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur [“CIT(A)”], evenly dated 15/09/2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') which are arising out of separate assessment orders evenly dated 23.06.2025 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act for the Assessment Years 2021-22 & 2022-23 (A.Y.) respectively. 2. The assessee in the instant two appeals have raised a common issue challenging the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- and ₹1,95,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) for A.Ys. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.Nos.737 & 738/NAG/2025 (Balika Subhash Pawar) 2021-22 & 2022-23 towards unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned addition has been made based on the transactions appearing in the bank account jointly held by the assessee and her husband. The transactions giving rise to the impugned addition have already been accounted for in the audited books of account of the sole proprietorship concern M/s. Jai Bhavani Bullion Touch, owned by the assessee’s husband. It is further submitted that assessment orders have been passed exparte as best judgment assessments u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and therefore, if an opportunity is granted, then all relevant documents exhibiting accounting of the alleged transactions in the regular books of accounts of assessee’s husband can be placed before Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). 4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of both the authorities below. 5. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I observe that assessee is an individual and mainly deriving income from agricultural activities, interest income and tuition business. Income of ₹ 4,51,150/- and ₹3,84,370/- declared in the returns of income for A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23, e-filed on 30.12.2021 & 28.07.2022. So Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.Nos.737 & 738/NAG/2025 (Balika Subhash Pawar) far as the issue raised in the instant two appeals is concerned, Ld.AO on carrying out the re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act observed that there are certain credit entries in the bank account of the assessee and for no proper explanation, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- and ₹ 1,95,000/- has been made for A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23. Before this Tribunal, learned counsel for the assessee has stated that bank account in which the alleged transactions are appearing is jointly held by the assessee and her husband and that the bank account is operated by the assessee’s husband and only the name of the assessee is mentioned as joint owner. It is also submitted that assessee’s husband runs a sole proprietorship concerned in the name of M/s. Jai Bhavani Bullion Touch and that the transactions appearing in the alleged bank account have been duly accounted for in the regular books of accounts which are audited and tax audit report have been e-filed along with income tax returns. However, since the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. JAO, best judgment assessment has been framed. 6. Considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee along with details placed in the paper book and also in the larger interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and restore the issues raised in the instant two appeals to the file of Ld.JAO for carrying out denovo assessment. Needless to mention that Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.Nos.737 & 738/NAG/2025 (Balika Subhash Pawar) Ld. JAO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- [MANISH BORAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 10th February, 2026 vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr.CIT, Nagpur concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, SMC Bench, Nagpur. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur Printed from counselvise.com "