MOSARRAT JAHAN,KOLKATA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), ADDL JCIT - 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 657/KOL/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mosarrat Jahan against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue arose from discrepancies noted in the assessee's income declaration and the purchases recorded in the Profit & Loss account during scrutiny proceedings. The Assessing Officer had increased the assessee's declared income significantly, which was contested. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity to present her case and directed a re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469564 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Gift
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री प्रदीप क ुमार चौबे, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राक ेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 657/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mosarrat Jahan………………………………………………………………Appellant [PAN: AIUPJ 7579 B] Vs. CIT(A), Addl. JCIT-4, Mumbai…………………………………………..Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Mohamad Riyad, CA. Department represented by: S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : August 21st, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : November 6th, 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)- 4, Mumbai [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 01.02.2024 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 20.11.2019. 1.1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee being an individual filed return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 19,03,250/-. The return was duly processed and in the course of scrutiny I.T.A. No.: 657/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mosarrat Jahan. Page 2 of 3 proceedings, some discrepancy at Rs. 8,81,541.71/- has been brought into the notice of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO'). The assessee before the ld. AO has informed that the assessee is engaged in a trading business of spinal cord therapy/massager machine and difference between purchase shown in Profit & Loss account and confirm by the creditor was basically purchase of fruits, juice, birthday celebration item and gift etc. The submission of the assessee has not been found to be tenable by the ld. AO and he assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 28,46,146/-. The said order has been challenged before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed due to non- compliance from the assessee. 1.2. The sole contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) instead of deciding the issue on merit had dismissed the appeal in limine. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee has balance sheet, profit and loss account that goes to establish the business of the assessee and the purchase and expenses. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee should be given an opportunity to place all these materials before the ld. AO as it relates to the calculation and assessment. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee being an individual due to some reasonable reason could not be able to appear before the ld. CIT(A) nor could be able to file all those papers which were lying with her Counsel. 1.3. Contrary to that the ld. D/R supports the impugned order. 2. We have perused the record and find that before the ld. AO the assessee has filed his show cause notice and submits that difference between purchase shown in Profit & Loss account was basically purchase of fruits and other items. His submission had not been found to be tenable by the ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee only on this ground that there was no response in spite of several notices to the assessee. The submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee possesses sufficient papers to establish his case and his prayer is to afford an opportunity to place all those papers before the ld. AO. I.T.A. No.: 657/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mosarrat Jahan. Page 3 of 3 3. Keeping in view the above facts, we are in this view that the assessee should be given an opportunity to place all those materials which he wants in order to establish the dispute before the ld. AO. Accordingly, the order of ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. AO is hereby set aside, case record is restored to the file of the ld. AO. Ld. AO is directed to hear the matter afresh and decide the case on merit after going over the papers filed by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to place all those papers without taking any frivolous adjournment. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 6th November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 06.11.2024 Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Mosarrat Jahan, 4B/5, Topsia 2nd Lane, 700039. 2. CIT(A), Addl. JCIT-4, Mumbai. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata "