GOPAL SAMANTA,HOOGHLY V. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

ITA 2561/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Gopal Samanta, an individual engaged in the business of distributorship and trading in cigarettes and building materials, who did not file his income tax return for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. The Assessing Officer treated a cash deposit of Rs.10,20,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, bringing it to tax under section 115BBE. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this addition, leading Samanta to appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT found that the CIT(Appeals) had not discussed the issues on merits and had dismissed the appeal due to the absence of any reply or evidence. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need for the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.

• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Kolkata
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 2561/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) Gopal Samanta 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 2561/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Gopal Samanta,…………..……………....……Appellant 9, G.T. Road, Serampore, Hooghly-712201, West Bengal [PAN:AZUPS1362E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-23(1), Hooghly, Roopma Mahal, Khadina More, Station Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101, West Bengal Appearances by: Shri P.K. Roy, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: February 24, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: March 27, 2026 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 29.05.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2018-2019. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2561/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) Gopal Samanta 2 2. The appeal is time barred by 98 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 6th November, 2025 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 98 days mentioning that he has no knowledge about the e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department and was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and unfortunately the impugned order dated May 29, 2025 was inadvertently overlooked and missed resulting in complete ignorance of the issuance, contents and deadline of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prepare filing work and other statutory compliance obligations as well as prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 98 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and there was no fault or in action on his part in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of 98 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual carrying on the business of distributorship and trading in cigarettes under the name “Sri Krishna Marketing” and trading and supplying of building materials under the name “Sri Krishna Builders”. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the AY 2018-19. On Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2561/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) Gopal Samanta 3 verification of the bank statement submitted by the assessee, it is seen that cash deposit to the tune of Rs.1,55,34,390/- was made in the bank Accounts. On perusal of capital account, it is seen that a total aggregated amount of Rs.10,20,000/- was introduced as capital by the assessee in cash on different dates in the bank account. The contention of the assessee was that he was holding the amount of Rs.10,20,000/- as emergency cash at home and did not submit any plausible explanation before the ld. Assessing Officer. Finally ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.10,20,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A and brought to tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer passed his order under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act determining the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs.10,20,000/-. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee sustaining the addition of Rs.10,20,000/-. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. At the time of hearing, the assessee filed additional evidence in support of his claim. He prayed before the Bench to give one opportunity to substantiate his claim. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2561/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) Gopal Samanta 4 7. At the time of hearing, ld. Departmental Representative stated that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the order confirming the order of ld. Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to produce satisfactory documentary evidences in support of its claim inspite of sufficient opportunities given. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant could not furnish any documentary evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer in respect of cash deposited. He, therefore, pleaded before the Bench to confirm the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 8. I have perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. It is also evident that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not discussed the issues on merits and dismissed the appeal due to absence of any reply/evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. Assessing Officer failing which the ld. Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2561/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) Gopal Samanta 5 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/03/2026. Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 27th day of March, 2026 Copies to :(1) Gopal Samanta, 9, G.T. Road, Serampore, Hooghly-712201, West Bengal (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(1), Hooghly, Roopma Mahal, Khadina More, Station Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101, West Bengal (3) CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha Printed from counselvise.com "