Wrong Taxpayer Facts Make Appellate Order Perverse: ITAT Agra

Sunita Agarwal Vs ACIT (ITAT Agra)

Same Name, Wrong Taxpayer: ITAT Sets Aside Mixed-Up Appeal Order

Correct cover page, incorrect adjudication

An appellate order may carry the taxpayer’s correct name, PAN and assessment year on its first page. But what happens when the discussion that follows concerns an entirely different taxpayer?

In Sunita Agarwal v. ACIT, ITA No. 629/Agr/2026, Assessment Year 2011-12, the Agra Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal encountered precisely this situation. The first appellate authority had mentioned the appellant’s correct particulars initially, but proceeded to decide the case of another Sunita Agarwal, with a different PAN and assessment year.

Finding the order perverse, the Tribunal set it aside and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication. It also condoned a 261-day delay in approaching the Tribunal, considering the assessee’s unsuccessful efforts to obtain rectification.

₹21.50 lakh cash deposits triggered reassessment

The assessee filed her return for Assessment Year 2011-12 on 30 July 2011, declaring total income of ₹13,83,860.

The Department subsequently received information regarding cash deposits aggregating to ₹21,50,000 in her HDFC Bank account. Reassessment proceedings were initiated through a notice under section 148 dated 27 March 2018. Notices seeking information and explanations were also issued during the proceedings.

The assessee explained that the deposits came from sale proceeds of plots and cash available with her, including amounts linked to earlier withdrawals. She furnished copies of the sale deeds and bank statements in support.

However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation and added the entire ₹21,50,000 under section 68 through an assessment order dated 24 December 2018, passed under section 147 read with section 143(3).

The explanation for the deposits

The assessee provided a deposit-wise explanation. The largest deposit, ₹14 lakh on 24 January 2011, was attributed to cash sale proceeds of ₹7.87 lakh and ₹5.70 lakh from two plots, together with ₹43,000 of available cash.

For the deposit of ₹3 lakh on 29 March 2011, she explained that ₹2 lakh represented cash received in lieu of a purchaser’s cheque towards plot consideration, while ₹1 lakh came from cash available with her.

The further deposit of ₹3 lakh on 30 March 2011 was explained as part of ₹3.50 lakh received in cash in lieu of another purchaser’s cheque. The final deposit of ₹1.50 lakh on 31 March 2011 was attributed partly to the remaining sale consideration and partly to her available cash balance.

These explanations formed part of the assessee’s case. Their correctness and evidentiary sufficiency were not finally determined by the Tribunal.

An appeal decided using another assessee’s facts

The assessee challenged the assessment before the first appellate authority. Her appeal was dismissed by an order dated 3 September 2025, ostensibly confirming the addition.

Before the Tribunal, her representative pointed out a fundamental defect. The first page correctly referred to Sunita Agarwal, PAN ADOPA3498B, Assessment Year 2011-12. However, the discussion beginning from the first paragraph concerned another taxpayer bearing the same name, with PAN ACAPA9244J and Assessment Year 2015-16.

The assessee argued that the appellate authority had reproduced facts, submissions and appeal particulars belonging to that other person, without deciding her actual controversy.

Her grounds also raised challenges to the reassessment, the approval under section 151, the opportunity afforded during assessment and the treatment of the cash deposits. According to her, these issues had not been examined in the correct factual context.

The Departmental Representative fairly admitted the factual position concerning the mix-up.

Rectification efforts explained the delayed appeal

The Tribunal appeal was filed on 18 August 2026, with a delay of approximately 261 days, as reported by the Registry.

The assessee explained that, after noticing the mistake, she had filed a rectification application and made a further request to the appellate authority. However, no action was taken. Pursuing correction consumed considerable time and delayed the Tribunal appeal.

Considering the uncontroverted affidavit and the interests of justice, the Tribunal accepted the explanation, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.

This was a fact-specific acceptance of the explanation furnished. The order did not hold that pursuing rectification automatically extends the limitation period for filing an appeal.

Fresh adjudication ordered

On examining the impugned order, the Tribunal confirmed that its substantive discussion related to another assessee with the same name but a different PAN and assessment year.

It therefore set aside the appellate order as perverse and restored the matter to the first appellate authority. A fresh order was directed to be passed in accordance with law, after providing the appellant an opportunity of hearing concerning Assessment Year 2011-12.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal neither deleted the ₹21.50 lakh addition nor decided the reassessment challenges on merits.

Author’s Comments

A common name cannot substitute for a taxpayer’s identity. PAN, assessment year, assessment order and grounds of appeal are essential reference points for meaningful adjudication. A correct first page cannot cure an order whose reasoning belongs to somebody else.

The defect here went beyond a typographical error: the appellant’s actual dispute remained undecided. Fresh adjudication was therefore necessary.

The condonation also recognises the practical difficulty faced by a taxpayer who first seeks correction of an obvious departmental mistake. Nevertheless, taxpayers should monitor appellate limitation while pursuing rectification. An application for correction and an appeal serve different purposes.

For the assessee, the mix-up has been corrected procedurally. The substantive task remains: establishing the sources of the cash deposits and obtaining a reasoned decision on her legal grounds. The right taxpayer must now receive a decision on the right case.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AGRA

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed in appeal No CIT(Appeal) 2, Agra/10410/2018-19 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ ADDL/JCIT (A) KOCHI [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2011-12, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the addition of Rs. 21,50,000/- made in the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 24.12.2018 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.

2. At the very outset, according to registry’s report, the appellant filed this appeal on 18.08.2026 by a delay of about 261 days. The reasons mentioned in assessee’s delay condonation application are that, there was an error in the order passed by the ld CIT(A), the said order was passed in respect of some other assessee who had the same name as that of present assessee but different, assessment year, PAN and factual background. Assessee moved a rectification application and further made a request to the ld CIT(A) for rectification in the order but no action was taken, this took considerable time and thus the appeal could not be filed on time. Prayed to condone the delay. In view of the uncontroverted affidavit and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to condone the said delay caused in filing this appeal. The delay is accordingly condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed her return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.07.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 13,83,860/-. The department had information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 21,50,000/- in her HDFC Bank Account on various dates. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018. Various notices u/s 133(6), 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee, seeking assessee’s response. Assessee submitted that she had sold two plots for Rs. 7,87,000/- and Rs. 5,70,000/- on 24.01.2011 and had made several withdrawals from her bank account, details of which are as under:

Assessee also submitted copy of sale deed and bank account statements, however the assessing officer was not satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee and treated the amount of Rs. 21,50,000/- as unexplained income and added in the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 24.12.2018 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.

4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal.

5. Assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds:

“1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned appellate order is a nullity in the eyes of law, having been passed on the basis of Facts, PAN, Assessment year and appeal particulars belonging to another assessee, and therefore the same is liable to be quashed outright.

2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities below have eared in law and facts of the case in making and sustaining the addition on account of cash deposits of Rs.21,50,000/- in the Bank Account of the appellant while the same were duly disclosed in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee which were either redeposit of cash withdrawals made earlier or sale proceeds of land sold during the year under consideration.

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned JCIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by passing an order which is ex facie erroneous, arbitrary, non-application of mind and invalid, as the impugned order proceeds on facts not relating to the appellant at all.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned JCIT(A) gravely erred in law in adopting and reproducing the facts, submissions, appeal particulars and discussion pertaining to another assessee of a similar/same name, having a different PAN, different assessment year and different factual background, without adjudicating the actual controversy involved in the appellant’s own case.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned appellate order is bad in law and void ab initio since the learned JCIT(A) has failed to exercise the appellate jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by not considering the material on record and by not disposing of the specific grounds raised by the appellant in respect of Assessment Year 2011-12.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned JCIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the appellant’s written submissions and evidences on record specifically related to Assessment Year 2011-12, PAN ADOPA3498B, and challenged the validity of reassessment under sections 147/148, the mechanical approv under section 151, denial of proper opportunity, and the addition of Rs.21,50,000/-, yet none of these issues have been adjudicated in the correct factual context.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned JCIT(A) has erred in law in not adjudicating the appellant’s express ground that no proper and effective opportunity of being heard was provided by the Assessing Officer, particularly when the show cause notice fixing hearing for 24.12.2018 was actually dispatched on 24.12.2018 and served only on 26.12.2018, rendering compliance impossible.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned JCIT(A) has further erred in not adjudicating the specific legal ground that the reassessment proceedings under section 147 were invalid in law, having been initiated merely on the basis of borrowed information available on the ITD portal and without any independent enquiry or lawful formation of belief by the Assessing Officer.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned JCIT(A) has also failed to adjudicate the appellant’s categorical challenge that the sanction under section 151 was accorded mechanically and without due application of mind, though the said issue was specifically raised before the appellate authority.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned JCIT(A) has erred in not dealing with the appellant’s detailed explanation on merits that the cash deposits of Rs.21,50,000/- stood fully explained from disclosed sources, including sale proceeds, cash book entries, withdrawals and other supporting evidences already placed on record before the Assessing Officer.

…….”

6. Perused the records. Heard ld representative for the appellant assessee and ld Sr (DR) for the respondent revenue.

7. At the very outset, ld representative for the assessee has drawn our attention that ld CIT(A) has mentioned the name of the assessee Sunita Agarwal on the first page with correct PAN No. ADOPA3498B for A.Y. 2011-12, however, from para 1 at page 1, the ld CIT(A) has passed order in respect of some other Sunita Agarwal, PAN No. ACAPA9244J, which is related to A.Y. 2015-16. Ld AR thus submitted that the impugned order is a nullity in the eye of law being based on the PAN, A.Y. and appeal particulars belonging to some other assessee and the same be quashed.

8. Ld Sr (DR) has fairly admitted the factual scenario explained by the ld AR.

9. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that ld CIT(A), while passing the impugned order, mentioned the details like PAN and assessment year etc. pertaining to the appellant Sunita Agarwal for A.Y. 2011-12. However, the order pertains to some other assessee of the same name but different PAN and different A.Y. etc. The impugned order is thus perverse and set aside. The matter is restored back to the file of ld CIT(A) with a direction to pass order a fresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee related to the A.Y. 2011-12. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.

10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on – 30.09.2026