Shalini Srivastava Vs Ward-2(1)(1) (ITAT Dehradun)
Rule 46A Technicality Can’t Trump Justice: ITAT Dehradun Remands ₹13.32 Cr s.68 Addition
Dehradun ITAT ‘DB’ Bench, in Shalini Srivastava vs. ITO (ITA No.121/DDN/2025, AY 2019-20, order dated 24.12.2025), partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and set aside the ex-parte orders, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B due to non-compliance, resulting in huge additions aggregating ₹13.32 crore, primarily on account of bank deposits treated as unexplained u/s 68. The CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal, refusing to admit additional evidence on the ground that no formal application/affidavit u/r 46A was filed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had sought to explain the nature and source of bank entries and had placed documents before the CIT(A), but the appeal was rejected purely on a procedural lapse without examining merits. Holding that substantial justice requires an effective opportunity, the ITAT set aside both the assessment and the appellate order and remanded the issue to the AO to consider all submissions and evidence afresh after granting due opportunity. The assessee was directed to fully cooperate and furnish all requisite details.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DEHRADUN
