RIPAN HALDER,RAJARHAT V. I.T.O., WARD - 49(4), KOLKATA

ITA 2295/KOL/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ripan Halder against the order of the Income Tax Officer, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The dispute centered on the alleged discrepancy between the turnover figures reported in the assessee's tax return and those in Form 26AS. The Assessing Officer added a profit estimate of 8% on the allegedly suppressed turnover and also added a small amount claimed as a subscription. The assessee contended that the turnover reported in Form 26AS included payments received in advance in previous years, which had already been taxed. The ITAT found procedural unfairness in the handling of the assessee's case at the CIT(A) level and remanded the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33497 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; FORM 26AS
• Section: 195; 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2295/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year 2016-17) Ripan Halder, Adarshapally, Gouranganagar, Raharhat - 700059 [PAN: ACDPH1193E] .....................…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(4), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Utarapan Complex, DS-IV, Kolkata - 700067 ...............…..….................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Gautam Patra, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of concluding the hearing : 20.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 03.03.2025 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The ITAT Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 195 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condoning the same as under: “The impugned Order-In-Appeal passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1062233470(1) dated 08.03.2024. Therefore, the appeal was required to be filed on or before 08.05.2024 (within 60 days from the date of communication of the order) as per provisions of the Act. However, the appeal is being filed beyond the appealable period by delay of approximately 195 days due to the following reason: The assessee is a serious patient of neurological disorders and is under rigorous treatment of medicines and furthermore the appellant became aware of such proceedings when a letter for penalty against the order was received by the appellant. 2 ITA No. 2295/Kol/2024 Ripan Halder Copy of Medical Certificate is attached here in the application. Prayer It is therefore prayed that delay of 195 days in filing appeal may kindly be condoned and appeal of the appellant may kindly be admitted for proper judicial remedy.” 1.1 Considering the reasons for delay as mentioned above, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. This appeal arises from order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter ‘the Act] by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai, dated 08.03.2024. 2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO noticed that there was a considerable difference between the figure of turnover as per Form 26AS (Rs. 1,68,27,074/-) and the figure disclosed in the return of income (Rs. 95,26,173/-). Therefore, the Ld. AO estimated profit after adding 8% of this allegedly suppressed turnover and made the addition of Rs. 6,01,352/-. The Ld. AO also added an amount of Rs. 1000/- which was claimed as some kind of subscription. 2.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the CIT(A), where in spite of several opportunities, he did not make any presentation of facts. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the additions. 2.3 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds: “1) That the Assessing Officer, erred in fact and circumstances of the case by passing the impugned order as turnover declared in FORM 26AS is for the payment shown by the debtors for the said year, where in actual fact, such payments were received in advance in previous two years and such advances were already considered for taxable turnover by the appellant. 2) That the Assessing Officer, erred in fact and circumstances of the case by passing the impugned order, as he failed to consider that the turnover declared in previous 2 years is more than the amount shown in 26AS and such payments were received in advance and the appellant had already the same to tax for the respective years.” 3 ITA No. 2295/Kol/2024 Ripan Halder 3. On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. 3.1 We have carefully examined the documents before us and also heard the Ld. DR at length, who while relying on the orders of authorities below, assisted the Bench in going through the documents pertaining to this case. 3.2 It is seen that there is a claim by the assessee regarding the fact that some quantum of the turnover is allegedly pertaining to earlier years’ income. However, it is seen that before the Ld. AO, the assessee had taken a different stand and stated that the figure of Rs. 93,10,173/- was erroneously shown instead of figure as per 26AS. We find that there is a remarkable difference between the stand taken before the Ld. AO and the stand visible from the grounds of appeal etc. (supra). However, it is also the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) did not have the benefit of any presentation from the assessee’s side to enable arriving at any conclusion regarding the factual position of this matter. Accordingly, in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this case to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to respond promptly to notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing in the case. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 03.03.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Sanjay Awasthi) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 03.03.2025 AK, P.S. 4 ITA No. 2295/Kol/2024 Ripan Halder Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Ripan Halder 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(4), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches "