Dilip Kumar Roy, Kolkata V. ITO, WARD-32(3), KOLKATA. , Kolkata

ITA 1256/KOL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6839 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Non compliance; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 250; 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता म ें IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, ल े खा सदस्य एवं श्री प्रदीप क ु मार चौब े , न्याधयक सदस्य क े समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1256/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dilip Kumar Roy......................................................................Appellant [PAN: AFYPR 6022 C] Vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata......................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Siddharth Agarwal, Adv. Department represented by: Prabhash Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : May 1 st , 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : May 30 th , 2024 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 27.09.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 23.10.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,25,610/- at NIL demand. The case was selected manually for complete scrutiny. On the basis of information available, it is found that assessee had deposited substantial cash in his bank I.T.A. No.: 1256/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dilip Kumar Roy. Page 2 of 4 accounts during the demonetization period (9 th November, 2016 to 31 st December, 2016). The assessee has been noticed to explain but it reveals from the order of the Assessing Officer (in short ld. 'AO') assessee did neither appear nor explain about the money as alleged to be deposited though the onus is on the assessee. Accordingly, it has been held by the AO that the assessee has concealed its true income as despite having four opportunities did not bother to provide details. The said order was placed in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and it appears from the order of ld. CIT(A) that wherein also the assessee did not place his case as a result of which the claim of the assessee has been rejected by upholding the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that documentary evidences such as balance sheet, bank statement for the period of 2016 & 2017 and submitted that the AO has erred in justifying that the amount deposited in the bank as unexplained money. 4. We have perused the order of the AO and find that assessee has been noticed as it appears in the chart below: Sl. No. Nature of Communication Date of Issue Mode of Service Delivery/Service status Remarks 1 Notice u/s 143(2) 28.09.2018 Both E mail and speed post Delivered Non Compliance 2 Notice u/s. 142(1) 22.07.2019 Both E mail and speed post Delivered Non Compliance 3 Refixation 13.08.2019 Both E mail and speed post Delivered Non Compliance 4 Final Opportunity 30.09.2019 Both E mail and speed post Delivered Non Compliance 5 Show cause 14.10.2019 Both E mail and speed post Delivered Non Compliance 5. We further, find that the AO has passed the order on the issue that the assessee despite having four opportunities did not bother to provide details as called for and wilfully avoided furnishing of the required documents. We have also gone through the order of ld. CIT(A) and it appears to us that ld. I.T.A. No.: 1256/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dilip Kumar Roy. Page 3 of 4 CIT(A) has also been deciding in absence of the assessee as the order reveals thus: “7.2 As is evident from the above, the assessee has not responded to the two notices seeking him to submit the purported documents which the appellant claim that he has filed before the Assessing Officer. Notwithstanding the same, he was also given the opportunity of filing evidence, if any, during the appeal proceedings, subject to Rule 46A of the IT Rules. However, the assessee has not submitted any evidence to substantiate his claim of having cash balances, in his business account and/or in his personal capacity.” 6. Before this Tribunal, the assessee has brought documents in support of money deposited in his accounts. Genuineness of documents are required to be scrutinized. Keeping in view the above facts as well as the facts the order passed in absence of the assessee, for the ends of justice, the case is remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after hearing the assessee. Assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings. The orders of ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) are hereby set aside. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30 th May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Manish Borad] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 30.05.2024 Bidhan (P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 1256/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dilip Kumar Roy. Page 4 of 4 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Dilip Kumar Roy, 20B Abdul Hamid Street, 5 th Floor, Room No-15, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069. 2. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata