SUDESH KUMARI,JAMMU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JAMMU RAIL HEAD COMPLEX PANAMA CHOWK JAMMU, JAMMU

ITA 601/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sudesh Kumari, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs.30.08 lakhs to the assessee's income on account of cash deposits in a bank account during the demonetisation period. The assessee, engaged in the business of trading cement, had filed a return disclosing a total income of Rs.10.26 lakhs but failed to explain the source of the cash deposits. The initial assessment was completed with a total income of Rs.40.34 lakhs, including the addition of Rs.30.08 lakhs. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal without adjudication on merits due to non-submission of required documents and explanations by the assessee despite multiple adjournments granted. The tribunal, considering the circumstances, remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority for a detailed examination with directions for the assessee to cooperate fully.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786689 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHARAN DASS
• Assessee Lawyers: P. N. ARORA
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 601/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sudesh Kumari, C/o Sh. P. N. Arora, Advocate, 3rd Floor SRK Mall, 14- Kennedy, Avenue Mall Road, Amritsar. [PAN:-AIBPK7352E] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Jammu & Kashmir. (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2025 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 12.09.2024 which has emanated from the order of AO, NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 147 of the Act, vide order dated 23.03.2022. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 601/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2 2. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 and all of them relates to the issue of addition of Rs.30.08 lakhs on account of SBN deposit in bank account during demonetisation period. 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of cement under the trade name of M/s Sharma cement traders. The assessee has filed a return disclosing total income of Rs.10.26 lakhs, but has not been able to explain the source of cash deposits in bank account and has not produced the cash book for the business carried out and in absence of proper explanation regarding the same, the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.40.34 lakhs (which included the addition of Rs.30.08 lakhs being the cash deposited in SBN). 4. The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed without adjudication on the merits on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal, in absence of any representation or any written submissions being filed, in response to various notices issued from the office of the ld. First appellate authority. 5. Before the tribunal the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that no proper opportunity was allowed by the ld. First appellate authority and aggrieved against the confirmation of addition of Rs.30.08 lakhs. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 601/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 5.1 He submitted that this is a case of tax audit where audit report u/s 44AB of the Act has been filed which has not been considered and the appeal has been dismissed without adjudicating on merits of the case. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the contention of the ld. AR has got no merits because it is apparent from the appellate order that notices issued has been received by the assessee who requested for adjournment on three specific dates and in spite of adjournment being granted no submission has been made which has compelled the appellate authority to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the rival submission and considered the material on record and we find that notices issued by the ld. First appellate authority has been duly received by the assessee who has prayed for adjournment and in spite of that, no submission has been filed. 7.1 However, in interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the file of the ld. First appellate authority to allow the assessee one more opportunity to file written submissions alongwith the supporting documentary evidence and to file cash book of his cement trading business to properly explain the source of cash (SBN deposited in bank account) to the satisfaction of the first appellate authority), and we direct the assessee to fully cooperate in appeal proceedings for proper disposal. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 601/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4 8. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all legal issues are left open. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21.11.2025 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order Printed from counselvise.com "