SUJIT KUMAR SAHA,HOWRAH V. ITO, WARD 47(2), KOLKATA

ITA 1270/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sujit Kumar Saha, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 43,30,000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, treating it as unexplained money from cash deposits during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-cooperation. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the request for another opportunity to present evidence, decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772224 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.B.CHAKARABORTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1270/KOL/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sujit Kumar Saha, C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Vs ITO Ward-47 (2), Kolkata PAN No. :ASXPS 4482 P (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.B.Chakaraborthy, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM : The assessee has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 11.06.2024, passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The appeal of the assessee has been filed belatedly by 284 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating that the delay is on account of ill-health of the assessee and also ill-health of his close family members. The reasons stated in the affidavit are found sufficient and plausible to which ld.Sr. DR did not object. Considering the submissions of the ld.AR and looking to the facts of the case, we condone the delay of 284 days and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1270/KOL/2025 2 3. Facts of the present case of the assessee are that the assessee filed return of income on 02.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.8,51,960/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS with a reason 'Cash deposit during demonetization period \". Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) &142(1) of the Act were issued. The AO completed the assessment after making addition of Rs.43,30,000/- u/s.69A of the I.T. Act treating the cash deposit in the bank account as unexplained money. In appeal, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis that the assessee was non-cooperative during the course of appellate proceedings. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Ld. AR before us submitted that due to some unavoidable circumstances the assessee could not comply the notices issued by the by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee was having sufficient documentary evidence to prove its case. Accordingly, the ld.AR prayed that assessee may be given one more opportunity to file the relevant documents to substantiate its case before the ld.AO 5. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee was unable to substantiate its case before either of the authorities below. Therefore, ld.Sr.DR prayed that orders of the authorities below deserve to be upheld. 6. Upon hearing the submissions of counsel for the respective parties and perusing the facts of the case and submission made by the ld. AR, we find that the ld. CIT(A) in para 4 of its order mentioned that various notices were issued however, the assessee remained non-cooperative Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1270/KOL/2025 3 during the course of appellate proceedings. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee was unable to explain the cash deposited into his bank account during demonetization period. However, the ld. AR during the course of hearing requested for one more opportunity to prove its case by submitting relevant documents before the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in this appeal to the file of ld.AO for adjudication afresh after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant documents to substantiate its case and cooperate in the fresh adjudication proceedings before the ld. AO, positively. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12/08/2025 Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 12/08/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "