SONATAN DAS,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4), RAIGANJ

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.1248& 1249/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sonatan Das.....................................................................................Appellant S/o- Nanda dulal Das, Newtown, Iluabari, North Dinajpur, Islampur, S.O(North Dinajpur), Kolkata- 733202 [PAN No. ALNPD1014F] Vs. Income Tax Office, Karnajora....…………..…………………....……….Respondent Raiganj- 733130 Appearances by: Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Praveen Das Chowdhury, (Sr. D.R),appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 14, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : July 21 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: These appeals filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.01.2026 and 29.01.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), passed under Section 147 and 271AAC1 of the Assessment Year 2018-19 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

At the very outset, it appears from the report of the Registry, the appeal has been filed after a delay of 6 days. A

ITA No.1248/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2018-19 petition to condone the delay has been filed. Going over the contents of the petition, delay is hereby condoned.

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

ITA No.1248/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2018-19 4. The Ld. AR challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that Ld. AO as well as CIT(A) had erred in considering the amounts deposited and withdrawn in and from the bank account of the assessee providing CSP Services to customer of State Bank of India. The further submission of the AR is that the Ld. Assessing Officer ought not to have considered the entire deposits and withdrawal made in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained as the assessee was not the owner of those money. The Ld. AR further submits that Ld. AO ought not to have considered the deposits and withdrawals made in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained without reference to any books of the accounts maintained by the assessee. It has further been submitted that AO had erred in not considering the shared transaction of Rs. 73,49,101/- as undisclosed investment/s 69 of the Act. The prayer of the assessee is that since the Assessing Officers has passed an order by holding that there was no sufficient documentary evidences has been produced by the AR at the time of the assessment proceeding hence, the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the AO for proper consideration by affording an opportunity to hear the assessee to pass a fresh order.

ITA No.1248/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2018-19 Contrary to that Ld DR supports the impugned order.

By issue of specific show cause vide DIN No ITBA/AST/F/144(SCN)/2022-23/1050369900(1)dated 03.03.2023, the assessee has been not only confronted about the proposed addition but also provided the details which required from the assessee, to prove the income and investment so that it can prove its stand. The only remedy available with the assessee after issuing of show cause notice is to object the same, submit its stand and upload or provide the required document that contra the findings of the show cause issuing authority. However, as evident 4

ITA No.1248/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2018-19 from the table, assessee not only made no response but also not objected to the proposed addition. The conclusion can be drawn that no evidence was in the hand of the assessee that proves that the addition proposed and confronted was correct and silence is acceptance. From above discussion, it is concluded that assessee failed to discharge its onus regarding the transactions reported in order u/s 148A(d).

5.1. Further, we find that there was no details/nature and source with regard to the withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 365,350,23/- has been submitted by the assessee,as a result of which, Assessing Officers has treated it as an unexplained withdrawals and a penalty proceeding has also been initiated.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee which has been filed against u/s 147 is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No.1248/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2018-19 ITA No. 1249/26

It relates to the penalty proceeding emerged from the order passed by the Assessing Officers confirmed by the CIT(A) u/s 147 of the Act. Since, we have already set aside the order passed u/s 147 and remitted the appeal to the file of the AO for fresh consideration,hence and the penalty order passed in pursuant to the order passed by the AO u/s 147 read with section 144 of the act are also hereby set aside and remitted back to the file of the AO with a direction to initiate the penalty proceeding after passing fresh assessment order.

In the result, both appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 21st July , 2026.

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

DC Dated:- 21.07.2026.

ITA No.1248/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2018-19

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

ITA No.1248/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2018-19