JASWINDER KAUR,TARN TARAN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

ITA 352/ASR/2025

AI Insights

The appeals by Smt. Jaswinder Kaur challenge the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which involved reassessments under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention revolves around the alleged unexplained investments and the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated based on third-party information. The assessee argued that the reopening of the assessment was unjustified and that the additions made were arbitrary and lacked proper basis. The tribunal found that the documentary evidence provided by the assessee had not been examined by the AO and thus remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 845717 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Amritsar
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHARAN DASS
• Assessee Lawyers: GAGANDEEP SINGH MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Salary income
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 351 and 352/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2015-16 Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Plot No. 80, Focal Point, Tarn Taran, Punjab. [PAN:-AGRPK5389H] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tarn Taran, Punjab. (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Gagandeep Singh Malhotra and Sh. Amrik Singh Malhotra, Advs. Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.03.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.02.2025 which has emanated from the order of AO, NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, vide order dated 16.03.2022. I.T.A. No. 351/Asr/2025 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. Nos. 351 and 352/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2015-16 2 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as under: “1. That the order of the learned AO framing the assessment u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act is wrong, illegal and against facts. 2. That Id. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case, explanation offered and proceeded to confirm the addition arbitrarily. 3. That the reopening of the assessment is bad in law. No proper satisfaction has been recorded by the AO for initiation of reassessment proceedings. 4. That the proceedings u/s 148 were initiated simply on the basis of information received by the AO from third party ile without application of mind but absolutely on the basis of information received from ITO Exemption which is not permissible under the law therefore the consequential order is liable to be annulled. 5. That the Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in making the addition towards investments made as the reasons recorded and the information available with Learned AO; were highly vague, farfetched and cannot lead to a conclusion of escapement of income. 6. That the so-called reasons do not show any application of mind on part of the Learned AO to show that any Income liable for Tax has escaped Assessment warranting recourse to notice under section 148 of the Act. Hence, the order passed by Learned AO is illegal and unjustified in law and on facts. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. Nos. 351 and 352/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2015-16 3 7. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case Hon'ble CIT(A) has grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition by the Ld. AO by invoking section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the income tax act, 1961 without considering the fact that the Appellant has duly explained and substantiated the nature and source of the funds. 8. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case Hon'ble CIT(A) has grossly erred, both facts and in law, in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO on account of investments made under section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the income tax act, 1961 without considering the fact that the Appellant being a 45 years old (at that time) woman and had been earning income from tuition since a very long time and have been regularly filing income tax returns. 9. That the provisions of section 69A of the Act are not applicable to the present case as such the impugned addition as confirmed is arbitrary, excessive, unreasonable and liable to be deleted in toto. 10. That the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is non speaking, incomplete, cryptic and dual meaning so as it directs the JAO for determine the actual amount which should have been added in income. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. Nos. 351 and 352/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2015-16 4 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has advanced a loan of Rs.65.12 lakhs to M/s Sikh Education Forum, Tarntaran (PAN: AAIAS7602M) out of which an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- (eight lakhs fifty thousand) has been advanced during the year under appeal. Regular return filed u/s 139(1) on 31/07/2014 declaring total income of Rs.6.13 lakhs, declaring tuition income and salary income. However, in absence of any return being filed in response to notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.202,1 and in absence of any compliance by the assessee to subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) the reassessment was finally completed on a total income of Rs.8,50,000/- (eight lakhs fifty thousand) as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. The matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been partly allowed after consideration of submissions filed by the assessee in course of appellate proceedings with the final observation as follows: “If the taxpayer fails to provide a satisfactory explanation or fails to substantiate their claims with proper evidence, the assessing officer has the authority to treat the unexplained investments or expenditures as the taxpayer's income. The amount can then be added to the taxpayer's total income for that assessment year, and tax, along with penalties and interest, can be levied accordingly. Investigation and inquiry by Ld. JAO clearly show that there was no rational explanation for source of deposit of cash before the Ld. JAO as appellant did not submit any information. Even the submission that it had source of income inform of tuition fees is Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. Nos. 351 and 352/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2015-16 5 not acceptable as not an iota of an evidence has been made available. As nothing has been bought on record qua addition made under section 69A of the ITA 1961, to explain nature and source of the unsecured loans advanced, addition made is not disturbed. However, as regards to quantum of addition made, Ld. JAO is directed to verify, reconcile and add only the amounts which have been advanced by the appellant. Appellant is directed to submit the evidence regarding the quantum of such amount, to the Ld. JAO. Subject to such verification ground of appeal is partly allowed. Appeals for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 is partly allowed subject to above directed verification by the Ld. JAO at the time of passing OGE.” 5. Now, the assessee is before the tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal, where the order has been challenged on legal issues and also on merits. 6. In course of hearing before the tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee furnished documentary evidences and written submissions alongwith evidences of academic qualification of the assessee and claimed that the advanced given by the assessee to the M/s Sikh Education Forum, Tarntaran has been sourced out of her income from tuition and in support of which she has furnished her computation of income, copy Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. Nos. 351 and 352/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2015-16 6 of certificates from universities and copy of ‘Punjab & Sindh Bank’ statement to explain that the funds has been transferred from the said bank account. 6.1 However, we find that these particular documents and other relating evidences has never been examined by the AO at any stage because the assessment is ex parte, and the same has been furnished before the ld. first appellate authority for the first time and as such, we are of the view, that these documentary evidences need to be examined and verified regarding its authenticity by the AO. 6.2 As such, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh assessment de novo on the basis of materials submitted by the assessee and the assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the fresh assessment proceedings and furnish all documentary evidences before the AO to explain her case and to fully explain the source of advance made by her. 6.3 We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all legal issues raised are left open. I.T.A. No. 352/Asr/2025 7. The facts in this appeal are exactly similar to those in ITA No. 351/Asr/2025, except the quantum of loan advanced for A.Y. 2015-16 is Rs.20,50,000/- (twenty lakhs fifty thousand) which is the subject matter of dispute. Our observation in ITA No. 351/Asr/2025 applies to this appeal mutatis mutandis. This appeal is also set aside to the AO for fresh assessment ‘de novo’ and all legal issues are kept open. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. Nos. 351 and 352/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2015-16 7 8. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23.03.2026 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4)The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order Printed from counselvise.com "