BINA KANWAR,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD TONK, TONK

ITA 1243/JPR/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ms. Bina Kanwar against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the additions made by the AO under sections 69A and 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The additions were made on account of unexplained cash deposits and income from other sources, respectively. The ITAT noted that the assessee had not been provided adequate opportunities to present her case at earlier stages, leading to the decision to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785446 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV AWASTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA; PA SSING AN EXPARTE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 147; 144; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1243/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ms. Bina Kanwar A-18, Kamla Nagar, Narayanpuri Vishanwala Panchawal, Jaipur – 302 034 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward -Tonk Tonk LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BBFPK 3076 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 28/10/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 29 /10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 24.07.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1.1 The impugned order u/s 147 of the L.T. Act, 1961 dated 12.03.2023 as well as the action taken and notices u/s 147/148 or other notices are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction, without proper satisfaction and approval of higher authorities and various other reasons or Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 1243/JPR2025 MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK bared by limitation and further contrary to the real facts of the case, hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1.2 The Ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the assessment order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law. hence the order may kindly be quashed and entire addition liable to be deleted. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex parte order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law and without considering the material on record, hence the order may kindly be quashed and entire addition liable to be deleted. 2. Rs. 74,52,000/-: The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in making the addition of Rs.74,52,300/- u/s 69A on account of alleged cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money, also erred in not considering the material available on record in their true perspective and sense and the Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the same without considering the details, submissions material available before him. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) AO is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. 3. Rs. 17,175/-: The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in making the addition of Rs.17,175/- on account of interest income from bank as income from other sources, also erred in not considering the material available on record in their true perspective and sense and the Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the same without considering the details, submissions material available before him. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) AO is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence same may kindly be deleted in full Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 1243/JPR2025 MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK 4. The Id. AO has also grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking the provisions of Sec. 11588E and charging the tax on higher rate and the Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the same to the Id. AO without considering the details, submissions material available before him. Hence the provisions so invoked and tax charged by the Id. AO is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full 5. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234 A.B.C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex-parte order as the assessee has not pursued the appeal before him with the requisite diligence and thus no conclusive explanation or credible documentary evidence had been presented to challenge or rebut the assessment order. The narration so made by the ld CIT(A) at para 8.1 to para 9 of his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’Decision 8.1 After carefully considering the circumstances of the case, it is evident that the appellant has not pursued the present appeal with the requisite diligence. Throughout the appellate proceedings, no conclusive explanation or credible documentary evidence has been presented to challenge or rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the absence of any substantiated defense, the appeal is Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 1243/JPR2025 MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK being adjudicated based on the material available on record and on its merits 8.2 The appellant has contested the reassessment order dated 12.03.2023 passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, primarily on the grounds that the assessment was conducted without proper jurisdiction, is time-barred, and violates the principles of natural justice Additionally. the appellant has raised objections regarding the addition of Rs. 74,69,180/- under section 69A, the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, and the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8.3 The re-opening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act 1961, is found to be legally valid. It is evident from the records that the Assessing Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The re- opening was initiated based on credible information received through the Insight Portal under the risk management strategy, which indicated substantial cash deposits in the appellant's bank account. The necessary approval was obtained as required under the provisions of section 151 of the Act. Furthermore, the appellant was duly notified and provided with sufficient opportunities to present their case. Given the circumstances and adherence to the procedural requirements under the law, the re-opening of the assessment is held to be valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. 8.4 However, a perusal of the assessment records reveals that statutory notices under sections 148, 142(1), and show-cause notices were duly issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant sought an adjournment, oiling the unavailability of her counsel, and assured that submissions would be filled within a week. Despite this assurance, no submission was received thereafter. The appellant failed to avail of the opportunities provided and did not submit any explanation or evidence to substantiate her claims, either during the assessment or appellate proceedings. As a result, the Assessing Officer was entirely justified in completing the assessment based on the material available on record. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 1243/JPR2025 MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK 8.5 The appellant has contended that the cash deposit of Rs. 38,52,000/- in her bank account was sourced from capital withdrawals from the ADP (Association of Persons). However, no corroborative evidence, such as the AOP's bank statements, capital accounts, confirmation letters, or supporting resolutions, was furnished to substantiate this claim. The appellant's assertion remains unsupported by any verifiable documentary evidence. Furthermore, in Form No. 35, the appellant explicitly stated that she was not engaged in any business activity in her individual capacity and did not have any taxable income, which further undermines her explanation for the cash deposits. 8.6 In the absence of books of accounts or verifiable documents establishing the origin and movement of funds, the appellant has failed to discharge the onus placed upon her under section 69A of the Act. It is well established that mere oral explanations or unsupported assertions cannot sufficiently explain cash deposits. The nature and source of the substantial cash deposits remain unexplained, and the appellant has failed to demonstrate any error in law or fact in the action of the Assessing Officer. 8.7 In view of the foregoing, the addition of Rs. 74,69,180/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A, read with section 115BBE, is found to be both justified and in accordance with the law. The appellant has not provided any credible evidence to contest the addition or to highlight any procedural violation or legal infirmity. Therefore, the grounds raised by the appellant are without merit and are hereby dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the prayed that the appeal of the assessee may kindly be restored to the file of the AO as the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities being not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA NO. 1243/JPR2025 MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case it is noted that the assessee is an individual and the return of income during the year under consideration was not filed. It is noted by the Department that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.74,52,000/- in the bank account held with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and the assessee had also earned interest on securities amounting to Rs.17,175/- from Bank of Baroda, Vaishali Nagar, Branch, Jaipur. Thus, in this case information was received by the Department from the Insight Portal which suggested that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration. It is noted from the record that the Department had sent various notices and show cause notices which were not responded by the assessee. Hence, the AO noted that the assessee has failed to submit any documentary evidence in respect of the source of cash deposits to her bank account during the year under consideration and he made addition of Rs.74,52,000/- u/s 69A as unexplained money and addition of Rs.17,175/- on account of interest income treating it as ‘Income from other sources’’. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA NO. 1243/JPR2025 MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK assessee had not submitted any credible evidences to contest the addition made by the AO. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, she could not put forth her defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing her case. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA NO. 1243/JPR2025 MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 29 /10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29 / 10/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Ms. Bina Kanwar, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward -Tonk 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1243/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "