RAM AZAD PAL,DURGAPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DURGAPUR

ITA 2300/KOL/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ram Azad Pal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The primary issue arose because the assessee did not file an income tax return for the specified year, despite receiving a substantial amount of \\u20b9 2,40,23,282 from various parties, which was subject to TDS under sections 194 and 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 147 and issued a notice under section 148, leading to an assessment that included unexplained investments, business income, and undisclosed interest income. The CIT (A) upheld these additions but allowed TDS credit. The Tribunal found that the CIT (A) had confirmed the order without adequate submissions or documents from the assessee, leading to the decision to remit the case back for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668950 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NICHOLAS MURMU
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHAL AGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 69; 139; 194C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, AM ITA No. 2300/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ram Azad Pal Ranchi Colony, Benachity, Faridpur, Durgapur, PIN-713213, West Bengal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Aaykar Bhavan, City Centre, Durgapur, PIN-713216, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AOYPP0987E Assessee by : Shri Vishal Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Nicholas Murmu, DR Date of hearing: 17.06.2025 Date of pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 14.09.2024 for the AY 2013-14. 02. Brief facts are that the assessee did not file income tax return for the assessment year 2013-14 u/s 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee had received huge amount of ₹2,40,23,282/- from various parties on which TDS was made u/s 194 & u/s 194C of the Act. On the basis of this information the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 15.04.2021. Later on, as per ruling given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022 and Instruction no. 01/2022 Page | 2 ITA No. 2300/KOL/2024 Ramazad Pal; A.Y. 2013-14 dated 12.05.2022, order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 27.07.2022 after providing necessary information and documents to the assessee and after provided reasonable opportunity of being heard u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Consequently, notice u/s 148 (final) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.07.2022. No compliance was made to this notice. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 29.12.2022, a reminder was issued on 25.01.2023 and show cause notices were issued on 03.02.2023, 9.02.2023 and 15.02.2023. The assessee filed part reply to the show cause notice and after considering the reply, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on total income of ₹22,67,804/- u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act on 15.03.2023 after making following three additions: (1) Unexplained investment of Rs.9,56,627/- u/s 69 of the Act on the ground that on the basis of monthly average of turnover for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2013-14 the additional operating capital required was Rs.9,56,627/-. (ii) Business income of Rs. 12,53,457/- computed on the basis of turnover as per Form 26AS computed the rate of 10% of gross receipts of Rs.1,25,34,570/-. (iii) Undisclosed interest income of Rs.57,720/- as per Form 26AS. 03. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) when ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order but allowed TDS credit. 04. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred the appeal before us. 05. The ld. AR challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the ld. CIT (A) as well as the ld. AO erred in estimating a profit margin on turnover significantly higher than the actual margin. The ld. AR further submits that addition made by the ld. AO u/s 69 of the Act is arbitrary and excessive. The ld. AR further submits that the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the order of the ld. AO when the assessee failed to furnish Page | 3 ITA No. 2300/KOL/2024 Ramazad Pal; A.Y. 2013-14 the documents as well as the submission before us. The ld. AR has also cited various decisions. 06. Contrary to that the ld. DR supports the impugned order thereby submitting that the ld. AR did not submit any submission nor filed any documents/ evidences before the ld. CIT (A). 07. Upon hearing the submission of the respective parties, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the order passed by the ld. AO when the assessee did not file any submission/ documents in support of his ground of appeal. Since, the ld. CIT (A) has passed the order against the assessee when there was no submission nor any documents/ evidences have been filed by the assessee, hence we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all the documentary evidences in support the grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) is directed to consider the submissions of the assessee, documents and judicial pronouncements filed by the assessee and then pass a fresh order on merit. As a result of which the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is set aside. The appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for fresh consideration. 08. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 23.06.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Page | 4 ITA No. 2300/KOL/2024 Ramazad Pal; A.Y. 2013-14 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "