Seema Pappu Yadav vs Income-tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Seema Pappu Yadav, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 31(3)(3), Mumbai. The Income-tax Officer had reopened the case under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and added Rs.52 lakhs as the purchase price of a property and Rs.14,96,900/- as a cash deposit in the bank account to the assessee's total income, as the source of these amounts was not explained. The assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and her appeal before the NFAC was dismissed for non-prosecution. During the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer submitted documents to explain the source of investment, which had not been filed previously. Both parties agreed to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
• 2. Whether the case should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• ITA No. 3354/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

  Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2004-05Allowed

• Jamshed Alam Vs DCIT, Circle-32, Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-2019Partly Allowed

• Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhla vs DCIT

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13Allowed

• BOSE CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD. Vs. ACIT

  DELHI BENCH benchAY 2007-08 & 2008-09Allowed

• M/s Naveen Timber Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT

  Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• Seema Pritam Sharma vs. ITO

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2022-23Allowed