GOPA GHOSH CHANDA,COOCH BEHAR, DINHATA V. ITO WARD-2(1), COOCH BEHAR

ITA 885/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Gopa Ghosh Chanda, the appellant, who was the director of UVSL Trade-X Limited, engaged in share/commodities trading. For the Assessment Year 2013-2014, a sum of Rs.32,34,100 was credited to her bank account, which she failed to explain satisfactorily when the Income Tax Department reopened her case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE, leading to its addition to her income. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this decision without a detailed examination, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the CIT(Appeals)'s handling of the case and remitted it back for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782360 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 885/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Gopa Ghosh Chanda 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 885/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Gopa Ghosh Chanda,………………………….……Appellant C/o. Kaushik Chanda, Madan Mohan Para, Dinhata, Coochbehar-736135, W.B. [PAN:AYPPG9182N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-2(1), Coochbehar Appearances by: Shri Naman Tiwari, C.A. and Shri Deepak Anand, C.A., appeared on behalf of the assessee Ms. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. D.R. Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: September 16, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 05.02.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee was Director of UVSL Trade-X Limited and was engaged in the business of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 885/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Gopa Ghosh Chanda 2 share/commodities trading. The Company was active several years ago but presently there is no existence of the Company. The nature of business done during the year was of sub-broking in Stock Exchange. During the Financial Year 2013-14 relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-15, there was a credit of Rs.2,19,970/- in the bank account of the assessee and the assessee has not filed the return for the impugned assessment year 2014-15. Hence, the case was reopened under section 147 by issue of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Since there was no response for the notice issued under section 148 and no return was filed by the assessee in response to the said notice, notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee calling for details. In response to the notice issued by the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed the details called for and stated that during the FY 2013-14 relevant to AY 2014-15, she has received amounts from individual retail investors for investment in Stock Exchange. The assessee stated that she has received amounts in cash for investments amounting to Rs.32,34,100/- from retail investors and deposited the amount of Rs.31,58,100/- into her bank account and did the Stock Exchange trading through SMC. The asseessee filed her receipts and payments account in which she showed the names of the persons to whom she stated to receive the amounts in cash. The assessee shown net loss of Rs.4,44,362/- from business and profession. In order to verify the genuineness of the contention of the assessee, notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 18.02.2022 for furnishing the relevant details. With regard to the genuineness of the cash received from the retail investors, the assessee failed to provide complete names, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 885/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Gopa Ghosh Chanda 3 addresses, PANs, ITRs as well as other details. The assessee only stated the names of the individual investors. The assessee completely failed to establish the genuineness of the source of cash receipts of Rs.32,34,100/-. Since the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of the cash deposits made in her bank accounts, therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.32,34,100/- as unexplained money of the assessee under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 and added to the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer determined the assessed income of the assessee at Rs.32,34,100/-. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee just by relying on the order of ld. Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before the Bench that the ld. CIT(Appeals) passed the order without going into merit of the case and giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, ld. Counsel pleaded to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for deciding it afresh. 5. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of the cash deposits made in her bank accounts. The assessee in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 885/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Gopa Ghosh Chanda 4 her reply only furnished her receipts and payments account in which she only showed the name of the persons without any addresses or PANs. The ld. D.R. also pleaded that the assessee completely failed to establish the genuineness of the source of cash receipts of Rs.32,34,100/-. The onus is on the assessee to prove with corroborative evidence but she failed to do so. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the ld. CIT(Appeals) proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee simply by relying on the order of ld. Assessing Officer. Keeping in view this factual position pointed out by the ld. D.R. from the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), I am of the view that proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard cannot be said to have been given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee before dismissing the appeal of the assessee. There is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. I, therefore, consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to Assessing Officer for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to make due compliance before the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 885/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Gopa Ghosh Chanda 5 Assessing Officer and extend all the possible cooperation by furnishing all the details in order to enable the Assessing Officer to dispose of the appeal afresh expeditiously. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/10/2025. Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 30th day of October, 2025 Copies to :(1) Gopa Ghosh Chanda, C/o. Kaushik Chanda, Madan Mohan Para, Dinhata, Coochbehar-736135, W.B. (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Coochbehar (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - 5 , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S. Printed from counselvise.com "