KAILASH SHAW,TITAGARH, NORTH 24 PARGANAS V. I.T.O., WARD - 52(2), KOLKATA

ITA 1799/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kailash Shaw, the appellant, who contested an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)) regarding the assessment of his income for the year 2017-18. The primary issue arose from substantial cash deposits made in bank accounts during the demonetization period, which were scrutinized under CASS. The Assessing Officer added the entire amount of Rs.13,18,000 to the assessee's income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, due to non-compliance in providing satisfactory explanations for the deposits. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found procedural lapses in the assessee's submissions, leading to the decision to remand the case for a thorough re-examination with an opportunity for the assessee to present his case adequately.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28763 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(2); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.1799/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kailash Shaw…………………………………………………………..….……….Appellant 7, JMG Road, Titagarh, North 24 Parganas – 700119. [PAN: BQHPS0311N] vs. ITO, Ward-52(2), Kolkata................................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Himadri Mukherjee, AR, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 11, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : February 11, 2024 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against an order dated 28.06.2024 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. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 by showing total income of Rs.2,31,950/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the issue that the assessee has deposited cash in bank accounts during the demonetization period for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. In the notice, the Assessing Officer stated that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.5,70,000/- and Rs.7,48,000/- in savings accounts of State Bank of India. In response, the assessee filed his reply stating that the assessee’s sister Basanti Keswri handed over her money to deposit in bank accounts as she cannot operate bank I.T.A. No.1799/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kailash Shaw 2 accounts due to loss of her eye sight. In this respect, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee asking more clarification on this point. However, the assessee failed to comply to the queries made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the entire amount of Rs.13,18,000/- u/s 69A of the Act by assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.15,49,950/- in the hands of the assessee. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order. However, before the ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee has failed to appear to prove his case. As there was no compliance, the assessee could not submit supporting documents in order to prove his case and ultimately, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the ld. AR is that the ld. CIT(A) did not properly consider the submissions made by the assessee as the assessee has failed to furnish certain documents before him. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that the assessee may be given another opportunity to substantiate his claim by remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. 5. The ld. DR did not raise any objection to the above prayer of the ld. AR. However, he stated that the assessee should strictly comply all the notices issued by the lower authorities as and when the matter will be fixed for hearing. 6. We, after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, find that the assessee could not able to produce documents in order to substantiate his claim before the ld. CIT(A). In the interests of justice and fair play, we feel it justified to remand the whole issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the case after I.T.A. No.1799/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kailash Shaw 3 providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order after verifying the documents submitted by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and comply all notices during the remand proceedings without any fail. 7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 11th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 11.02.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Kailash Shaw 2. ITO, Ward-52(2), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches "