BISWAJIT TALUKDAR ,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR V. ITO WARD 3(4) , BALURGHAT

ITA 1980/KOL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Biswajit Talukdar against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 9,49,916 to the assessee's income. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on limited compliance by the assessee to notices regarding certain transactions. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not discuss the merits of the case but upheld the AO's decision due to non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal, considering the principles of substantive justice, decided to remand the case for a fresh examination of the facts and merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785220 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1980/Kol/2025 Assessment Year 2016-17 Biswajit Talukdar, C/o B.N. Talukdar Basantahar Bolla, Balughat Dakshin Dinajpur – 733154, Balurghat, West Bengal [PAN: AHVPT6380Q] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 30.10.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 31.10.2025 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) dated 09.01.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO is seen to have passed an order after giving details of the very limited compliance by the assessee in response to notices issued by him. Thereafter, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 9,49,916/- after estimating this amount from total impugned transactions amounting to Rs. 1,18,73,958/-. Thereafter before the Ld. CIT(A) there is a detailed rendering at page 2 of his order that there was no fruitful compliance to Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1980/Kol/2025 Biswajit Talukdar the notices issued from his office. Thereafter, the action of Ld. AO was duly confirmed. 1.2 On the last date of hearing, none attended on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the help of Ld. DR. 1.3 Aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and u/s 250 are bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 949916 on estimate and the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same. 3.. For that any other grounds may kindly be allowed to be urge at the time of hearing.” 2. The Ld. DR took us through the impugned order and the order of Ld. AO and pointed out that very pin-pointed queries were raised by the Ld. AO to which the assessee gave very general replies. However, the Ld. DR fairly mentioned that there would be no objection in case this matter to was to be remanded back for fresh consideration. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions before us and the averments of Ld. DR. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has nowhere discussed the merit of the matter and has simply gone by the fact that the assessee has not complied to the notices issued from his office. Accordingly, in the interests of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to be alert and file the necessary documents before the Ld. CIT(A) so that appropriate appreciation of the facts can be done. 4. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1980/Kol/2025 Biswajit Talukdar Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma) (Sanjay Awasthi) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 31.10.2025 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "