MANIK MAITI,EAST MIDNAPORE vs. ITO, WARRD 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

The brief facts on record are that, the assessee did not file the return of income for the year. The Assessing Officer based on information, that the assessee has income from salary and interest to the tune of Rs.77.72 lakh during the year, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee did not file return in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. There was no compliance to the

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There was no compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee that the amount to the tune of Rs39,17,395/- represent retirement benefits received from military. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

Before us, the Ld. AR represented that the matter was concluded ex-parte at both levels without considering the contention that the impugned amount represents retirement benefits and not taxable. However, the Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions. We note that the impugned addition has been made without hearing the assessee and without inquiry. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment and remit back to

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 05.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 05.08.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//