Debanjan Chakraborty, Jalpaiguri V. ITO Ward-1(2), Jalpaiguri

ITA 436/KOL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0255 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144; 142(1); 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता म ें IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राज े श क ु मार, ल े खा सदस्य एवं श्री प्रदीप क ु मार चौब े , न्याधयक सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 436/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Debanjan Chakraborty............................................................Appellant [PAN: ATFPC 2863 F] Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jalpaiguri....................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Anil Kochar, Adv. Department represented by: Nicholash Murud, Addl. CIT, DR. Date of concluding the hearing : July 8 th , 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : August 9 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 16.01.2024 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Act dated 03.12.2019. 1.1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee being a salaried employee has income below the taxable limits. He deposited cash amounting to Rs. 10,62,170/- in his bank accounts during the I.T.A. No.: 436/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Debanjan Chakraborty. Page 2 of 4 demonetization period. On the basis of the information, assessment proceedings were initiated as information was that the appellant deposited huge cash amount in his bank account during the demonetization period and did not file return of income for the concerned AY 2017-18. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee to furnish his return of income related to the cash transaction in bank account but after several notices, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee and accordingly, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') added Rs. 10,62,170/- in the total income of the assessee. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) but appeal of the assessee has also been dismissed on the ground that there was no response on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal has been dismissed. 1.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the appellant is a salaried person and he kept the amounts in the bank account as savings and also the amount received by the appellant from parents. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the source of amounts deposited in bank during the demonetization period. As he kept some amounts for future use and also kept the amount received from parents. The submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that he should have given an opportunity to place his case before ld. AO as he has not given sufficient opportunity to place his case. 1.3. The ld. D/R supports the impugned order. 2. We have perused the order of the AO and find that the AO has added an amount of Rs. 10,62,170/- in the total income of the assessee as he received information regarding the deposit of that amount during the demonetization period. It also appears from the order of the AO that the order was passed behind the back of the assessee. The same thing happened before the ld. CIT(A). It appears from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that ld. CIT(A) also passed an order as the appellant has not responded to any of the notices. The operative portion of the order of the ld. CIT(A) is thus— I.T.A. No.: 436/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Debanjan Chakraborty. Page 3 of 4 a) Even during the course of appellate proceedings, sufficient opportunities were given by the FAA but the assessee remained non-compliant and non- serious in proceeding his appeal and accordingly, the appeal has been dismissed. 3. Keeping in view the facts of the case that the appellant is a salaried person and the order passed by the ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A), due to the non-compliance of the assessee, we are of this view that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to place his case before the ld. AO as it relates to the amount deposited during the demonetization period. Accordingly, the orders of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) are set aside, case is remanded back to the file of the AO for afresh decision by giving an opportunity to the assessee to place his all facts and documents before the AO. We further are of this view that there should be no latches on the part of the assessee in prosecuting the case. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9 th August, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 09.08.2024 Bidhan (P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 436/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Debanjan Chakraborty. Page 4 of 4 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Debanjan Chakraborty, C/o Santosh Kumar Chakraborty, Bilpara, Tirtha Kutir Khar, Shantinagar, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, 735101. 2. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jalpaiguri. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata