आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ' ' , कोलकाता ए पीठ कोलकाता म IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA , श्री जॉजज माथान न्याधयक सदस्य एवं , श्री राके श धमश्रा लखे ा सदस्य के सम Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1768/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mithu Pal I.T.O., Ward-50(2), Kolkata Vs.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: BDKPP3517R Appearances:

Assessee represented by : Narendra Kedia, Adv.

Department represented by : Arun Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT, Sr.

DR.

Date of concluding the hearing : March 5th, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : March 5^th, 2025

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 dated 18.06.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s.

143(3) of the Act, dated 22.12.2019.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal which are not numbered in the appeal memo, but have been numbered here for the sake of reference:

“1. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with the relevant legal provisions, the learned CIT(Appeals) erroneously disregarded the appellant's submission that she is not the owner of the amount deposited in her bank account, totalling Rs. 2,33,12,575/-, as per the definition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the addition of this amount under section 69A is both unjustified and legally unsustainable.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) failed to acknowledge the affidavit submitted during the appellate proceedings, which provided the name and PAN number of the actual owner of the cash deposited in the appellant's bank account. This oversight of a substantial piece of evidence undermined the factual basis of the decision, rendering the order of the CIT(Appeals) unsustainable and legally flawed due to the lack of proper examination of this critical affidavit and related documents.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) also disregarded the appellant's income pattern from the assessment year 2010-11 to 2017-18, which was presented in written submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), based on the Income Tax Returns filed. This income pattern clearly demonstrates that the appellant cannot be considered the owner of the amount deposited into the bank account.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) summarily rejected all submissions made by the appellant, including the affidavit and facts on record, without providing any reason. This renders the order of the CIT(Appeals) a non-speaking order, legally unsustainable, and liable to be quashed and cancelled.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant provided comprehensive details regarding the nature and source of the deposits in her bank account, including the name of the beneficiary, during the appellate proceedings. However, the learned CIT(Appeals) rejected these submissions without offering any reasons and confirmed the addition under section 69A of the Act without any explanation or reference in the order under section 250 of the Act.

6. The appellant craves to add or amend ground or grounds of Appeal on or before the date of hearing as may be allowed by appellate authority.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s assessment for the impugned assessment year was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after obtaining the requisite statutory approval. The Ld. AO noted that in the bank accounts of Kotak Mahindra Bank and Canara Bank, cash of Rs. 69,16,575/- and Rs. 1,63,96,000/- totalling to Rs. 2,33,12,575/- was deposited during the financial year 2011-12 and the assessee was requested to explain the sou