Md. Neyaz Hasan, KOLKATA V. ITO, Ward 25(3), Kolkata

ITA 1435/KOL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7723 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 250; 69A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A No.1435/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2017-18 Md. Neyaz Hasan......................................... ..............................Appellant C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2 nd Floor, Kolkata- 7000069. [PAN: ARGPN2639D] vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), Kolkata....................................................................Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S. Datta, CIT- DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 27, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : April 23, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय ɮवारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.07.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing. I.T.A No.1435/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2017-18 Md. Neyaz Hasan 2 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.6,70,48,551/- made by the A.O. u/s 69A as unexplained money and wrongly applying the provision of section 115BBE thereon. 3. Without Prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have applied a reasonable percentage of G.P. on the credits in the bank a/c which were nothing but realization of sale proceeds. 4. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A) to submit that the orders of both the lower authorities are ex parte orders. A separate affidavit has also been filed, wherein, it has been stated that the assessee is a non-return filer and do not know the nitty gritty of Income Tax proceedings. That no notice of hearing has ever been served upon the assessee by any of the lower authorities through physical mode. That the notices were served either through email or were uploaded on Income Tax portal which were not accessed to by the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in this case the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits during demonetization period. The ld. Counsel inviting our attention to the impugned assessment order has submitted that while making the additions, the Assessing Officer has also added the amount relating to the other credit entries apart from the cash deposits. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that the assessee is a small businessman and the entire deposits out of were business receipts of the assessee. That the assessee has fair case on merits. He has further submitted that exaggerated additions have been made by the Assessing Officer and further confirmed by the CIT(A) in respective ex parte orders as the assessee, out of ignorance and being not aware of the date of hearings, could not file the necessary submissions and I.T.A No.1435/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2017-18 Md. Neyaz Hasan 3 documents. The ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted that in the interests of justice, the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 5. Considering the submissions made by the ld. AR of the assessee and also going through the record and also considering the affidavit filed by the assessee, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case. The Assessing Officer will serve the notice of hearing both through electronic and physical mode upon the assessee. The assessee is also supposed to furnish relevant details and evidences as and when called for by the Assessing Officer. 6. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 23 rd April, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Sanjay Garg] लेखा सदèय /Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय /Judicial Member Dated:23.04.2024. RS I.T.A No.1435/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2017-18 Md. Neyaz Hasan 4 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Md. Neyaz Hasan 2. ITO, Ward-25(3), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches