SUMITRA DEVI BIHANI,SILIGURI V. ITO, WARD 1(2), SILIGURI

ITA 2588/KOL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sumitra Devi Bihani against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 84,74,102 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act during the demonetization period, framing the assessment under section 144. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to the non-appearance of the assessee on multiple dates, confirming the Assessing Officer's order without discussing the issues on merits. The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by restoring the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829786 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Kolkata
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PASSING AN EX
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.2588/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sumitra Devi Bihani…..………...………..............................……….……Appellant C/o Rexine King, Tera Hotel Building, Sevoke Road, Siliguri-734001. [PAN: ADJPB3235A] vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Siliguri...………….……………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Sujit Basu and Rajeev Mukherjee, Advocates, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S B Chakraborty, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 14, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : January 16 ,2026 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26.10.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for the AY 2017-18. 2 After hearing the rival contentions, we find that the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s 144 by making an addition u/s 69A of Rs.84,74,102/- during demonetization period. In the appellate proceedings, the dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex parte order on account of non-appearance on behalf of the assessee on different dates. We find that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without discussing and deciding the issues on merits when the assessee failed to respond to the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2588/Kol/2025 Sumitra Devi Bihani 2 opportunities provided by the ld. CIT(A). Under the circumstances, in our view, the interest of justice would be well-served if the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merits after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 16th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Pradip Kumar Choubey] [Rajesh Kumar] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:16.01.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "