NARAYANA SINGH CHAYA KUMARI,BENGALURU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(2), BENGALURU

ITA 415/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ms. Narayana Singh Chaya Kumari, the appellant, who contested the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, dated 09.08.2024. The dispute arose from the assessment year 2017-18, where the assessee declared an income of Rs.16,39,150 in her return filed on 06.04.2018. The return was processed under section 143(1) and selected for scrutiny due to substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period and investments in immovable property. The AO treated Rs.49,68,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, leading to an assessed income of Rs.64,5,150. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-response from the assessee, despite multiple notices. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, remitted the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for the assessee to provide adequate documentary evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785166 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LIKITH PATEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI.KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.415/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Narayana Singh Chaya Kumari, #34, 8th Cross, Saraswathipuram, Bangalore – 560 096. PAN : AJXPK 5639 D Vs. ITO, Ward – 6(2)(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Likith Patel, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 09.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the NFAC, CIT(A)under section 250 of the Act, dated 09.08.2024. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 06.04.2018 declaring income of Rs.16,39,150/-. Return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and case was selected for scrutiny through CASS reason being cash deposited during demonetization period and investment in immovable property. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee and other statutory notices were issued. Assessee furnished copy of sale deeds, copies of invoice, bank statement, copy of ITR, etc., and it was found that assessee maintained 4 bank accounts in 4 different banks where Rs.48,16,000/- cash was deposited during demonetization period but the assessee failed to substantiate with Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.415/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 documentary evidence regarding deposit of cash. For want of documentary evidence amount of Rs.49,68,000/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and income was assessed at Rs.64,5,150/- and completed assessment on 30.12.2019. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) issued several notices but there was no response from the assessee’s side. Thereforelearned CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee on the basis of material available before him. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the AO and submitted that notice issued by the CIT(A) might have settled in spam folder and requested for one more chance and undertook that assessee will substantiate her case with documentary evidence. 5. The learned DR relied on the Order of lower authorities and submitted that several chances were given by the learned CIT(A) but assessee could not notice. 6. Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the jurisdictional AO for fresh consideration and decide the issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to substantiate her claim with cogent material / evidences and not to seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.415/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore. Dated: 29.10.2025. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR,ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "