SUSAMMA JOHN,BENGALORE V. ITO FACELESS, BHILAI

ITA 750/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Susamma John, a retired army officer and pensioner, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which sustained additions to her income for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The additions were based on incorrect salary details mistakenly filed by her tax consultant, Miss Madhu Ramteke. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal without proper inquiry or consideration of the evidence provided, including Form 26AS and an affidavit from the tax consultant acknowledging the error. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a quasi-judicial authority to adhere to principles of natural justice and proper examination of facts before making a decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 823214 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.750/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Susamma John S 207 Sai Sakthi Avhni 343/35, Sriramapura, Jakkar B.O, Bangalore North, Bangalore-560 064 Karnataka PAN: AJTPJ8725D .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer NFAC ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Susamma John Vs. ITO, NFAC ITA No.750/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 28.10.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the time when the matter was called up for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. As calculated by the Registry, there is delay in filing appeal. However, the calculation of delay is incorrect since the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has been passed on 28.10.2025 and as per verification of Form 36, the appeal was filed on 3rd December, 2025 which is within the time limit since the time limit from the date of passing of the order of appeal would have expired only on 27.12.2025. Hence, there is no delay involved in filing of this appeal. 3. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, the assessee had submitted that she had given her ITR related records to Miss Madhu Ramteke to file ITR for A.Y.2020-21. That the said Miss Madhu Ramteke was always filing ITR for the assessee but in this year, Miss Madhu Ramteke had made mistake in filing ITR for A.Y.2020-21, wherein at the time of filing ITR, she had inadvertently filed some other persons salary details in the ITR of the assessee and thus filed it wrongly. The affidavit from Miss Madhu Printed from counselvise.com 3 Susamma John Vs. ITO, NFAC ITA No.750/RPR/2025 Ramteke had also been filed on record by the assessee before the Revenue authorities. 4. That as per facts, the assessee is a salaried employee and retired from army as an officer, being aged about 69 years during the year under consideration. The assessee is drawing monthly pension income which is directly credited to her bank account and the same has been duly shown as pension income in her ITR filed for A.Y.2020-21. The appropriate amount of income tax was at Rs.50,990/- which has been paid and duly reflected in Form 26AS for A.Y.2020-21. In the ITR filed on behalf of the assessee by the said Miss Madhu Ramteke, the salary details have been wrongly filled in which does not belong to the assessee. She has clarified before the department that as a pension holder from army, her other income includes FDR interest and savings bank interest. The assessee had also attached copy of Form 26AS for the relevant A.Y.2020-21 before the department so that her contention can be cross-checked and verified. However, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC without any enquiry regarding claim made by the assessee had summarily dismissed the submissions raised by the assesse and had sustained the additions. The facts pertaining to income are not disputed by the Department. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is cryptic, Printed from counselvise.com 4 Susamma John Vs. ITO, NFAC ITA No.750/RPR/2025 perverse and is not based on any enquiry as regards the submissions made by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has also not verified the contents of Form 26AS vis-à-vis returned income of the assessee. That without bringing any reason or details, the submissions of the assessee has been abruptly dismissed by the first appellate authority. In my considered view, the Revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee is a pensioner and retired army officer who has drawn pension income a/w. bank interest. The Revenue has also not brought any other source of income of the assessee as undisclosed source of income. On the contrary, the assessee has made submissions that mistake has been committed by her tax consultant and in support thereof, the assessee has filed affidavit of the said tax consultant also. Even, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC without negating the contents of Form 26AS has summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee which therefore is not in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act nor within the principles of natural justice as contemplated within the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority. Accordingly, I set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and direct the A.O to delete the additions from the hands of the assessee while providing appeal effect of this order. 6. As per the above terms, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. Printed from counselvise.com 5 Susamma John Vs. ITO, NFAC ITA No.750/RPR/2025 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 24th day of December, 2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 24th December, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "