HOOGHLY NADI JALAPATH PARIBAHAN SAMABAY SAMITY LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.1163/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hooghly Nadi Jalapath Paribahan Samabay .........................................................Appellant Samity Ltd, 4/5, Rishi Bankim Chandra Raod, West Bengal- 711101 [PAN No. AAAJH0049J] Vs. I.T.O., Circle – 46,.........................…………..…………………....……….Respondent 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata, West Bengal- 700001 Appearances by: Sanjay Chatterjee, C.A.., appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Dipu Koley, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR,,,appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 06, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : August 14 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.03.2025 of the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, passed under Section 201 of the Assessment Year 2013-14 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

At the very outset, it appears from the report of the Registry that the assessee has filed the present appeal after a delay of 150 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit to condone the delay. Going over the contents of the affidavit delay is hereby condoned.

ITA No.1163/Kol/2026 2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that assessee did not file its return of income for the Financial Year 2018-19. As per the records/system no regular assessment u/s 143(3) order u/s 147 of the IT Act has been done. The information in this case has been identified and flagged by the directorate of Income Tax (systems), CBDT in accordance with the risk management strategy as the information received that assessee carried out certain financial transaction such as cash deposits of Rs. 845,8586/- in savings accounts with State Bank of India, payment to contractors to the tune of Rs. 118,200/- where T.D.S was made pursuant to Section 194C of the Act, payment to contractor Dolphin Enterprise to the tune of Rs. 1,11,762/- where TDS was made pursuant to Sec. 194C of the Act. Payment to contractor SIGHT to the tune of Rs. 34,000/- where TDS was made pursuant to Sec. 194C of the Act time deposits other than a time deposit made through renewal of another time deposit) of Rs. 1,98,29,153/- in State Bank of India. Payment to State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 4,44,694/- where TDS was made pursuant to Sec. 194A of the Act. Cash withdrawals of Rs. 52,550/- (including through bearer’s cheque) from current account with UCO Bank where aggregate gross amount credited to the account by cash is Rs. 1,55,11,448/-. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee, Assessing Officers after going over the submission and the details filed by the assessee treated an amount of Rs. 84,585,860/- as an unexplained

ITA No.1163/Kol/2026 money u/s 69A of the act, an amount of Rs. 19,829,153/- undisclosed deposits in State Bank of India has been treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, undisclosed interest, receipts of Rs. 4,44,694/- and an amount of Rs. 62,93,573/- on account of undisclosed receipt receive have been added as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the said order assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred appeal before us.

The Ld. DR did not raise any objection.

ITA No.1163/Kol/2026 4. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the assessment order we find that in the assessment order Assessing Officers made the following additions:-

(a) Estimation of Profit:

The Assessing Officer made a technical addition by estimating profit at 3% of the total turnover of Rs. 14,69,35,463, resulting in an addition of Rs. 44,08,063, without rejecting the audited books of accounts and without bringing any material evidence on record to justify such estimation. (b) Addition of Interest on Fixed Deposit: The Assessing Officer further added an amount of Rs. 4,44,694 being interest on fixed deposits. However, the said interest income had already been duly recorded in the books of accounts and included in the audited financial statements of the assessee. Thus, the addition resulted in double taxation of the same income. 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an order dated 25.08.2025, bearing DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079962582(1), whereby the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground that the assessee had not filed its return of income and had not paid the advance tax which was allegedly payable. On this basis, the learned Commissioner held that the appeal had become infructuous and dismissed the same without adjudicating the issues on merits. 4.1. The CIT(A) has passed an order which are as follows:-

Form-35, the appellant has offered 'Not applicable comments at sl. No. 9 of Form-35 whereas it was supposed to make payment of tax equal to the amount of advance tax payable on its income which in the present case is the income assessed by the AO as no ITR was filed by it. It is, therefore, clear that information, given at sl. no. 9 of Form- 35 is not correct and the appellant has not made payment of amount equal to the advance tax which was due on its income. A plain reading of provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act makes it clear that the appellants are required to pay an amount equal to the advance tax which was due on their income irrespective of the situation whether the addition(s) was/were disputed in appeal or not. The statute has differentiated between the assessee who filed ITR and paid taxes on admitted income and the assessee who though failed to ITR but have paid an amount equal to the 4

ITA No.1163/Kol/2026 advance tax which was due on their income. In the former situation provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act are not applicable and those assesses are in advantageous position. In the latter situation, since the assessees had failed to file ITR, the amount of tax equal to the advance tax which was due on their income would mean the income assessed by the AO. Those assessees cannot claim later on that they are not liable to pay an amount of tax equal to the advance tax which was due on their income as they are challenging the additions in appeal and that their income was below taxable limit. The appellant has also not requested for exemption from operation of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 249 of the Act. 4.2. The order passed by the CIT(A) was completely on the issue which was not involved in the appeal. We find substance in the arguments of the AR is that the appeal should be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass an order on the issue involved in the appeal.

In the result, the appeal has been allowed for statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 14th August , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated: 14.08.2026.

ITA No.1163/Kol/2026

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches

ITA No.1163/Kol/2026