SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA,AJMER V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

ITA 576/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shobha Suman Mishra, the appellant, contesting the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2), Ajmer, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The primary issues revolved around the validity of the assessment order passed without considering the return filed by the assessee in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the treatment of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 7,10,250 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705687 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Shri Krishna Dutta Academy v/s Income Tax Officer IV(4), Lucknow, Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian v/s CIT (A)-26, Mumbai
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Salary income; Onus to prove
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 154

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” 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;djvihyla-@ITA No.576/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2014-15 Shobha Suman Mishra 5/6, B Block, Keshav Marg, Panchsheel, Ajmer-305 001 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 2(2) Ajmer LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AGCPS7545N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Sanjeev Jain, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 25/06/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 30/06/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13-09-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2014-15 raising therein following grounds of appeal. (1) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not providing complete order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed on 13/09/2024, for which Rectification u/s 154 was filed by the assessee. 2) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by passing order u/s 154 r.w.s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 2 ITA NO. 576/JPR/ 2025 SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA VS ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER 27/03/2025 which is before the due date of response i.e. 31/03/2025, provided to the assessee through Notice dated 24/03/2025. 3) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by treating assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer without considering of return of income filed by the assesse u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as Valid. 4) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not admitting Additional Evidences as per Rule 46A of the Income- tax Rules, 1962. 5) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming addition of Rs. 7,10,250/-, by treating the amount deposited by the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’ 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal (supra), it is noticed that the ld . CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. ‘’7.1 Looking to the assessment order, it is seen that the AO issued the notice on 24-03-2020 giving 30 days for filing the return. He also noted that no return was filed in response to the same. The appellant in her submison has contended that she had filed the said return but the same was not considered. The chronology of events as given in the submissions is reproduced below:- Particulars Date Filing of original income tax return 04-03-2015 Issuing of notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 24-03-2020 Filing of Income Tax Return u/s 148 20-08-2021 Assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B 14-09-2021 7.2 From the above, it is clear that while the notice was issued on 24-03-2020, the assessee only filed the return on 20-08-2021, more than one year after the period of one month after the notice was issued. Accordingly, the contentions of the appellant cannot be accepted and the Ground of Appeal is not allowed.’’ ‘’8.6 In the present case, it is seen that no satisfactory explanation was provided by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as per findings of the AO in the assessment order. Furthermore, it has been held that the additional evidence provided in these present proceedings cannot be considered. 3 ITA NO. 576/JPR/ 2025 SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA VS ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER Accordingly, the contention of the appellant that the cash deposits are out of salary income and accumulated savings is without any basis. Thus, it can only be held that no evidence has been submitted to prove the genuineness and source of the cash deposits made in the bank account and that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.7,10,250 is upheld and the Ground of appeal is not allowed. 9. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also did not consider the additional evidence raised by the assessee and thus sustained the addition as made by the AO amounting to Rs. 7,10,250/- u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee. To this effect, the ld. AR of the asseessee has filed following written submission with the prayer to allow the appeal of the assessee, deleting the addition of Rs.7,10,250/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act. ‘’Ground No. 1: The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by treating assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer without considering of return of income filed by the assesse u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as Valid. Detailed Submission: 1. Sir, your kind attention is drawn to the following table: Particulars Date Filing of Original Income Tax Return 04/03/2015 Issuing of Notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 24/03/2020 Filing of Income Tax Return u/s 148 20/08/2021 Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B 14/09/2021 4 ITA NO. 576/JPR/ 2025 SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA VS ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER It is very clear from the above table, that the Ld. Assessing Officer has passed Assessment Order after filing of Return of Income u/s 148 by the assessee. 2. However, Ld. Assessing Officer in his Assessment Order has stated that \"Notice u/s 148 of the IT Act issued dtd: 24.03.2020 which has been served on the assessee via mail dtd: 25/03/2020 requesting the assessee to file Return in response to reopening notice within 30 days. But assessee has not filed any return of income in response to 148 Notice\" (Refer Point No.2 on Page No. 3 of Assessment Order). Sir, as it is evident from the facts, that the assessee has filed her Income Tax Return in response to Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but the Ld. Assessing Officer has passed Order without considering Return of Income filed u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Assessment Order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer is without considering actual facts of the case, hence the Assessment Order in itself is bad in law. 3. Further, Ld. CIT(Appeal) held that Return of Income filed by the assessee u/s 148, beyond the time limit prescribed via Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is liable to be treated as non-est and no cognizance is to be taken of the same by Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee would like to state that there is no specific provision in Income Tax Act, 1961 which says that if the return is not filed within time prescribed under section 148 of the Act, it is a non-est return in law. 4. In support of the above contention of the assessee, your kind attention is being drawn to the case of M/s Shri Krishna Dutta Academy v/s Income Tax Officer IV(4), Lucknow (ITA Nos.565, 566 and 568/LKW/2011 dt 28/05/2013), where Hon'ble ITAT Lucknow held that \"We find that undisputedly the return was not filed by the assessee within the time prescribed under section 148 of the Act. But for that reason, can the return be called to be non-est in law as held by the Assessing Officer? We have also examined the provisions of section 234A of the Act, according to which if the return is filed late, interest can be charged. Therefore, there is no intention of the Legislature to hold the return to be non-est if it is not filed within the period prescribed in the notice issued under section 148 of the Act\" Keeping in consideration the above judicial pronouncements and provisions of Income Tax law, it is clear that Ld. CIT(Appeal) has incorrectly treated the Return of Income as non-est. Therefore, you are requested to kindly consider the Return of Income u/s 148 as valid return of income and quash the Assessment Order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer without considering actual facts of the case and consequently delete the demand confirmed by Ld. CIT (Appeal) and provide due relief to the assessee. 5 ITA NO. 576/JPR/ 2025 SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA VS ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER However, still your goodself is not agreeable with our views, the assessee would like to submit further. Ground No. 2: The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming addition of Rs. 7,10,250/-, by treating the amount deposited by the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Submission: 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer has mentioned in the Assessment Order that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 7,10,250/- in her bank accounts, however the assessee has deposited the amount of Rs. 7,10,250/- in HDFC Bank, Swami Complex, Ajmer (Refer Page No.2 to 6 of Paper Book). 2. The assessee has deposited Rs.11,85,250/- in the Bank a/c out of Salary received in cash and accumulated savings held by the assesse. The date wise Cash Flow for the relevant AY is enclosed (Refer Page No. 7 of Paper Book). which prove sufficient availability of cash with the assessee. Further, Salary Certificate is also enclosed (Refer Page No. 1 of Paper Book). Hence, the source of cash deposits is fully explained however the Ld. Assessing Officer has treated the cash deposits of Rs. 7,10,250/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and has added the same to Total income of the assessee during the relevant A.Y. and Ld. CIT(Appeal) has confirmed the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer. 3. Further, Ld. CIT(Appeal) has stated that \"the appellant has made no application for admission of Additional Evidence, hence evidences submitted by the appellant in these proceedings cannot be considered for adjudication of the appear. In this regard your kind attention is being drawn to the case of Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian v/s CIT (A)-26, Mumbai (ITA No. 3746/Mum/2019 dated 20/09/2022) where Hon'ble ITAT Mumbal held that \"We find that Rule 46A, does not mandate compulsorily by making written application for admission of additional evidence. It is for the learned CIT (A) to record the reason if such additional evidences are admitted. Therefore, according to us, the learned CIT (A) rejected the claim of the assessee on flimsy ground\" Sir, as the source of cash deposits is explained beyond doubt, alongwith supporting documentary evidences hence no addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made and therefore you are requested to kindly delete the addition of Rs. 7,10,250/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer and provide due relief to the assessee.’’ 6 ITA NO. 576/JPR/ 2025 SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA VS ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER Conclusively, at the time of hearing of the appeal the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to restore this appeal to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication as made in the case of the assessee in ITA No. 1344/JPR/2024 for the assessment year 2015-16 being the similar issue. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities but did not object to the prayer of the ld.AR of the assessee to restore the appeal to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication being the similar issue relating to A.Y. 2015-16. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed her return of income for theA.Y. 2014-15 on 04-03-2015 vide acknowledgement No.495033500040315 declaring total income of Rs.11,65,250/-. The details of income earned by the assessee during the relevant year are as under:- S.N. Amount 1. Salary (Central Academy Educational Society) 9,85,500 2. Other Sources (Interest income Rs.1,26,746/- and Supervision Charges Rs.17,800/- 3,04,746 Total 12,90,246 Thereafter notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 24-03-2020 by the AO but the assessee had not filed any return of income in response to Notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is noted from the submissions of the ld. AR that the assesse had filed the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the 7 ITA NO. 576/JPR/ 2025 SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA VS ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER Act on 20-08-2021 vide acknowledgement no.325449500200821 (PB page 8). From the submissions of the assessee, it is also noted that the AO had issued an order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with Section 144B of the Act on 14- 09-2021 without considering the income tax return filed by the assessee u/s 148 of the Act. In this case, it is also noted that the assessee had deposited the amount of Rs.11,85,250/- in her bank account out of her salary received in cash and past accumulated savings. However, the AO treated the amount of Rs.7,10,250/- deposited by the assessee in bank account out of her salary received in cash and accumulated savings as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act and made addition of Rs.7,10,250/- to the total income of the assessee which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A) holding that no evidence had been submitted by the assessee to prove genuineness and source of the cash deposits made in the bank account and that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden cast u/s 69A of the Act. From the entire records of the case, the Bench noted that similar case of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 in ITA No. 1344/JPR/2024 vide order dated 05-05-2025 was restored to the file of theAO for afresh adjudication of the case. Hence, being identical issue of the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15, this appeal of the assessee is also restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication 8 ITA NO. 576/JPR/ 2025 SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA VS ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER adopting the same modus operandi as made in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 (supra). Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30 -06-2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30 /06/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shobha Suman Mishra, Ajmer 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 576/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "