MILAN MALLICK,BAGDA V. ITO, WARD 50(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1170/KOL/2025

AI Insights

Milan Mallick, an individual and Bank Mitra with Allahabad Bank, appealed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 12,23,735 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. This addition was initially made by the Ld. Assessing Officer due to non-compliance with statutory notices and was based on unexplained cash deposits in Mallick's bank accounts. The CIT(A) dismissed Mallick's appeal for lack of response to multiple notices. The Tribunal found that Mallick was not adequately represented at the earlier stages and remanded the case back to the Ld. Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, allowing Mallick to present new evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775889 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राक ेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1170/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Milan Mallick Vs. ITO, Ward 50(1), Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ASMPM5127E Appearances: Assessee represented by : P. K. Ray, Adv., Ripan Chand Haldar, Adv. & Tidip Nayak, AR. Department represented by : Abhijit Adhikari, JCIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 20- August -2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 10-September-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)']-NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18 dated 28.03.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, dated 20.11.2019. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 1170/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Milan Mallick 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not appreciating the submission as abstracted by him in his appeal order therefore, inter alia erred in confirming the addition of the appeal order and therefore, the addition confirmed may please be deleted. 2. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in upholding the addition amounting to Rs. 12.23,735/- in respect of fund deposited in Bank Accounts which has not commensurate with return of income as well as added back to income as unexplained money u/s 69A and taxed to income u/s 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961 although the Adjudicating Authority failed to collect evidence from investigating part of the Adjudicating Authority before imposing to tax and its consequent and therefore, the addition as well as charging the tax may please be deleted. The aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to each other and the appellant craves leave to add/delete/alter and/or amend any of grounds as aforesaid as and when necessary.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual Bank Mitra since 2011 (Customer Service Point) with the Allahabad Bank and had filed the return showing total income of ₹2,00,992/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices were issued which were not complied with. Accordingly, a sum of ₹12,23,735/- being the cash deposits in the bank accounts maintained with the Allahabad Bank was and the assessment was made at the total income of rupees 14,24,727/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 28.03.2025 dismissed the appeal as despite issuing several notices for granting an opportunity of being heard, the assessee did not respond nor filed any explanation in support of the relief claimed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 1170/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Milan Mallick 4. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. 5. In the course of the appeal before us the Ld. AR file copy of bank statement and requested that the assessee had deposited the cash collected from the customers of the Allahabad Bank. These documents were neither filed before the Ld. AO nor before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore the Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO as the assessee has sufficient evidence for the cash deposited in the bank accounts but could not file explanation on account of lack of representation. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. 6. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We find that at both the stages of assessment order before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal, proper representation was not made on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remitted to the Ld. AO while the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). After considering the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play that another opportunity needs to be provided to the assessee to represent his case properly before the Ld. AO as the assessee claims to have sufficient evidence in support of the relief claimed. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as of the Ld. AO and remit the matter to the Ld. AO to frame the assessment afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournment and shall be at liberty to file all evidence in possession for Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 1170/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Milan Mallick the relief claimed. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 10.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 1170/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Milan Mallick Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Milan Mallick, Kumarkhola, Bagda, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, 743270 2. ITO, Ward 50(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Uttarapan Complex, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700054 3. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "