KAUSHIK MONDAL,KOLKATA V. I.T.O., WARD - 61(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1158/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kaushik Mondal, the appellant, who contested additions made to his income by the Income Tax Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained deposits. The primary contention was the addition of Rs. 35,69,000 attributed to bank deposits, which the appellant claimed were gifts from relatives. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the additions due to insufficient evidence from the appellant. The ITAT, after multiple hearings where the appellant was absent, decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for the appellant to be given another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775227 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Gift

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1158/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year 2012-2013) Kaushik Mondal, Tower V, 13A, South city Garden, 61, B L Saha Road, Tollygunge Phari, Kolkata - 700053 [PAN: APTPM8060J] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 61(2), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, 169, A J C Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Mangtinlen Haokip, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 27.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 01.09.2025 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. This appeal arises from order dated 21.03.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO issued notices for eliciting a response to queries from the assessee, but there was no response to the same. Thereafter, several additions were made to the returned income. 1.2 The assessee primarily challenged the addition of Rs. 35,69,000/-, made on account of deposits in bank, u/s 69A of the Act. However, before Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1158/Kol/2024 Kaushik Mondal the Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee could not succeed as it was held that evidence was not produced to substantiate the impugned deposits as being out of gifts received. 1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds: “1. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) erred in confirming the addition of Rs4569000/-u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and such action of the Ld NFAC is arbitrary. unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. 2. For that the Ld NFAC erred in rejecting the explanation of the Appellant that the appellant had received gifts from her close family relatives and such action of the Ld NFAC is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. 3. For that the Ld NFAC erred in appreciating that the explanation of the appellant as having received the cash gift from close family members of the appellant supported by affidavits, after lapse of many years the explanation of the appellant could not have been rejected and such action of the Ld NFAC is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. 4. For that the Ld NFAC erred in confirming addition of a sum of Rs 10 lacs u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 admittedly received as refundable loan from the employer of the appellant and such action of the Ld NFAC is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. 5. For that the Ld AO erred in making addition of Rs 45.69 lacs u/s 69A without giving any specific show cause u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and such action of the Ld AO is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. 6. For that the appellant having explained the source of cash from his close relatives and opening balance, the provisions of Section 69A could not have been applied for making the addition of Rs 35.69 lacs and such action of the Ld NFAC is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. 7. For that the appellant craves indulgence to add, amend, alter, modify the grounds on or before the hearing of this appeal.” 2. On the last date of hearing and even on three earlier hearings, none attended on behalf of the assessee. In light of this fact, it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. 2.1 The Ld. DR stated that the explanation filed by the assessee was not adequate regarding the additions made. The Ld. DR pointed out that the assessee has not furnished good evidence to justify the impugned deposits. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1158/Kol/2024 Kaushik Mondal 3. We have carefully considered the documents before us and have heard the Ld. DR. We find that the assessee has not availed of opportunities given to him to produce evidence in justification of his claim. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment, after giving an opportunity of being heard. 4. In result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 01.09.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (George Mathan) (Sanjay Awasthi) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 01.09.2025 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1158/Kol/2024 Kaushik Mondal Printed from counselvise.com "