SWARUP PALIT,KOLKATA V. I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1465/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Swarup Palit, the appellant, contesting the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained cash deposits and undisclosed income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary contention was the rejection of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A), which the assessee argued was crucial to substantiate the source of the deposits. Additionally, a procedural challenge was raised regarding the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act by a non-faceless authority, which was claimed to be contrary to the provisions applicable to faceless assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298776 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 147; 148; 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण कोलकाता 'B' पीठ, कोलकाता मŐ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA ŵी संजय गगŊ, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी संजय अव̾थी, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1465/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Swarup Palit ………. Appellant 64/4A/1C, Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee Road, Beliaghata, Kolkata-700015. (PAN: AWYPP5229L) Vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata ......... Respondent Appearances: Appellant represented by : Shri Ananda Sen, AR Respondent represented by : Shri S. B. Chakraborty, JCIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 06.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 06.02.2025 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal I.T.A. No.: 1465/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Swarup Palit Page 2 of 3 Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. “CIT(A)'] dated 24.04.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.61,98,810/- made by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 read with section 144 of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer in this case has made the addition of Rs.51,83,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit into the bank account of the assessee and that of Rs.4,73,655/- on account of undisclosed contractual income of the assessee and that of Rs.319/- on account of interest income. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is an ex parte assessment order. It has been further submitted that this was not a case of unexplained cash credit into the bank of the assessee. That the amount in question was actually transfer of money from partnership account in which the assessee was a partner, which was thereafter utilised for expenses incurred on behalf of the partnership firm. The assessee had produced the additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) to prove the source of the deposits and other income and submitted that no additions were warranted in this case. However, the Ld. CIT(A) simply rejected the additional evidence filed by the assessee holding that the assessee had not mentioned in Form 35 that it was filing additional evidence. The assessee in this appeal has also taken a legal ground that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the ITO, Ward- 44(2), Kolkata, whereas, as per the relevant provisions of the Act, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act could have been issued by faceless Income Tax Authority and not by the concerned Income Tax Officer, Ward-44(2), Kolkata. 5. Since in this case, the assessee has pleaded that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to exercise his jurisdiction I.T.A. No.: 1465/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Swarup Palit Page 3 of 3 vested in him under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and completely ignored the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, therefore, in our view, the interests of justice will be well served if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the additional evidences filed by the assessee and decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. We order accordingly. It is further directed that the Ld. CIT(A), if so required, may call upon a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of the explanations, submissions and additional evidence furnished by the assessee and thereafter to decide the appeal on merits by way of speaking order. Ld. CIT(A) will decide each of the grounds taken by the assessee including legal/jurisdictional grounds by way of a speaking order. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 6th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Awasthi] ` [Sanjay Garg] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 06.02.2025 Jd., Sr.P.S) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – Shri Swarup Palit 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard file. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches "