KRISHNA PRASAD,SILIGURI V. ITO, WARD 3.1, GANGTOK

CO 61/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-3(1), Gangtok against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which pertained to the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention by the revenue was that the CIT(A) improperly restored the issue to the Assessing Officer's file for further examination, which the revenue argued was not permissible under the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, Krishna Prasad, represented by Shri Palas Chattopadhay, argued that the short notice given for response to the assessment order did not allow adequate time for compliance, leading to the submission of additional evidence at the CIT(A) level. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of the newly submitted evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774815 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDIP SARKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PALAS CHATTOPADHAY
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1406/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok Vs Krishna Prasad C/o Dipak Chakraborty, 15, Shai Marg, Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri – 734003. (PAN: AUWPP1788N) (Assessee) (Revenue) CO No.61/Kol/2025 (in ITA No.1406/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishna Prasad C/o Dipak Chakraborty, 15, Shai Marg, Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri – 734003. (PAN: AUWPP1788N) Vs ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok (Assessee) (Revenue) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Palas Chattopadhay, AR Revenue by : Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR- JCIT Date of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 ORDER Per George Mathan: ITA No.1406 of 2025 is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1405/Kol/2025 Girish Kshanlal Sharma 2 no.NFAC/2017-18/10042414 dated 07.04.2025 for assessment year 2018-19. C.O No.61 of 2025 is cross-objection filed by the assessee in respect of revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1406/Kol/2025. 2. Shri Palas Chattopadhay, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR- JCIT represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was the submission by the ld. Sr. DR that the ld. CIT(A) has restored the issue in the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for producing the evidences before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that this was not permissible in view of proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. 4. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that the notices u/s 142(1) has been issued to the assessee only on 18.03.2021 and the assessee was asked to reply to the said notice by 20.03.2021. It was the submission that the assessment order has also been passed on 22.03.2021. It was the submission that the assessee has not been granted adequate time to respond to the notices and produce the evidences. It was the submission that consequently, the assessee produced evidences before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer and was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1405/Kol/2025 Girish Kshanlal Sharma 3 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue shows that the reasons raised in Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, this relates to the admission of additional evidence. It is very clear that the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment did not give the assessee adequate time to provide all the evidence before the Assessing Officer. This is the reason adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) and after receipt of the fresh evidences restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The ld. CIT(A) now has the power to set aside the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer. This being so, we find no error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which calls for interference. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee where he has asking that addition is required to be deleted stands also dismissed. 6. In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and cross-objection of the assessee stand dismissed. Kolkata, the 1st September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Awasthi] [George Mathan] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 01.09.2025. RS Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1405/Kol/2025 Girish Kshanlal Sharma 4 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Assessee - 2. Revenue – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "