MAYURI PODDAR,SAGAR V. INCONE TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SAGAR

ITA 174/JAB/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mayuri Poddar, the appellant, who filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was regarding additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the assessee's income, which included an addition of Rs. 6,01,368 for excess cash deposits and Rs. 7,99,500 for unexplained investments. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting part of the addition but confirming a portion. The Tribunal found that the AO had not adequately considered the audited books of account or the assessee's replies, leading to the decision to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835975 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE WAS; N. M. PRASAD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.174/JAB/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.174/JAB/2024 Assessment year: 2017-18 Mayuri Poddar Satyam Poddar Colony, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470002. PAN:BOQPP1228G Vs. ITO Ward-3, Sagar Income Tax Office, Civil Lines, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470001. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA: A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.174/JBP/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 17.09.2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068739098(1) of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“CIT(A)”, for short). The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. AO has made addition of 6,01,368/- on account of excess cash deposited in the bank account., by applying some imaginary formula, without even verifying the books of accounts which are audited by a Chartered Accountant and without considering the reply of the assessee. Assessee had also submitted the detail reply along before the CIT(A) but same was not considered by him and dismissed the appeal of assessee in this ground. It is requested kindly delete the addition made by AO. 2. AO has made addition of 7,99,500/- on account of unexplained investment i.e. assuming that the assessee has repaid seemed loan of Rs. 7,99,500/- obtained from bank as paid out of books whereas the same is reflected and is paid out of the regular books of accounts which are audited by Chartered Accountant. In the first appeal before the CIT(A) assessee has submitted the detail reply after which C1T (A) had partly allowed appeal of assessee in this ground by deleted the addition of Rs. 7,04,500/- and confirming the addition of Rs. 95,000/-. It is requested kindly delete the addition made by AO. Appellant by None (Adjournment application) Respondent by Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.174/JAB/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2 3. The assessee craves leave to add alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case, the assessee filed his return of income on 28.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.13,94,350/. The Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) completed the assessment and passed assessment order 23.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.54,66,772/- by making various additions. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 17.09.2024, the assessee’s appeal was partly allowed by the learned CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (C) At the time of hearing before us, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard. After deliberation on the grounds of appeal, it is found that the assessee has contended that the order has been passed by the Assessing Officer without verifying the audited books of account and without considering the reply submitted by the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the issues in dispute in the grounds of appeal are restored back to the file of the AO, with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and after giving due consideration to all relevant materials such as the submissions made by the assessee, audited report etc. The Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue was in agreement with this at the time of hearing before us. All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with our aforesaid direction. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.174/JAB/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 (D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 13/02/2026 Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 13/02/2026 Vijay Pal Singh (Sr. PS) Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Jabalpur Printed from counselvise.com "