RANJIT KUMAR PRAMANIK,24-PARGANAS (SOUTH) V. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 26(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1298/KOL/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ranajit Kumar Pramanik against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which was initially set under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention revolves around the non-cooperation of the assessee's authorized representative during the assessment proceedings, which led to an unchallenged addition of cash deposits under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal considered the submissions and the procedural history, including multiple opportunities previously granted to the assessee, and decided to reiterate the CIT(A)'s order for re-adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470931 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUCHIKA SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAIKAT GHOSAL; SANJAY KR. PARIDA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1298/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranajit Kumar Pramanik N.A. Nila, Karaiberia, P.S. Ramnagar, 24 Parganas (South), Pin-743504. (PAN: AFQPP6982B) Vs. ACIT, Circle-26(1), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Sh.Saikat Ghosal, AR & Sh. Sanjay Kr. Parida, AR Respondent by : Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063466990(1) dated 27.03.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18 2. Sh. Saikat Ghosal, AR & Sh. Sanjay Kr. Parida, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 2 ITA No. 1298/Kol/2024 Ranajit Kumar Pramanik, AY: 2017-18 3. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is a brick manufacturer. He is an aged person. He had turnover of Rs.1,08,52,125/- and had a net profit of Rs.10,89,916/-. It was a submission that the assessee was assisted by an AR in regard to the representation before the Assessing Officer but on account of the non-cooperation of the Ld. AR of the assessee, the assessment was completed wherein the cash deposited by the assessee in his bank accounts came to be treated as an addition u/s. 68 of the Act. It was a submission that as the assessee was not properly represented before the Assessing Officer, the issues in the appeal in the interests of justice may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 4. The Ld. CIT, DR vehemently argued against the setting aside. It was a submission that the assessee has been granted multiple opportunities by the Assessing Officer. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case it clearly shows that the assessment order is not a very speaking order. It can be on account of the fact that the assessee has not cooperated in the assessment proceedings. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) also shows that remand report has been called for from the Assessing Officer, the same has not been provided. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) also shows that the issues in the appeal have already been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication and this is what the assessee is also pleading before us now. We consequently do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. Though at the point of time when the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal, he did not have the powers to set aside but he set aside. In the interests of justice, we are reiterating the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and setting aside to the file of the Assessing 3 ITA No. 1298/Kol/2024 Ranajit Kumar Pramanik, AY: 2017-18 Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate his case. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mishra) (George Mathan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 24th February, 2025 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Ranajit Kumar Pramanik 2. The Respondent. ACIT, Circle-26(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata 6. Guard file. True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata "