GAYATRI HALDER,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), 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 2752/KOL/2025 Assessment Year- 2014-15 Gayatri Halder.........................................................................................................Appellant Juhmkati Khash Kumrokhali, Canning, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal- 743376 [PAN No. ACLPH2776B ] Vs. I.T.O., Ward- 25(1).................................…………..…………………....……….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin 2, Gariahat Road South, Kolkata-700031 Appearances by: I Banerjee, FCA., appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Manas Mondal, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : June 10, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : July16 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.09.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Assessment Year 2014- 15 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee that the assessee filed her return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 showing total income of Rs. 2,16,375/- on 31.03.2015. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the reason" cash deposit in savings bank accounts is more than the turnover" and the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) on 18.08.2016 determining the total income of Rs. 9,13,850/- on presumptive basis @ 8.99% on the total amount of deposit of

ITA No.2752/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2014-15 Rs.96,82,000/- treated as gross receipts of the assessee from her business of rice supply though during the assessment proceedings the A/R of the assessee could not explain the sources of cash deposit in Bank of Boroda, Canning Branch, 24 Parganas(S) at Rs. 36,55,000/- and AXIS Bank, Canning Branch, 24 Parganas(S) of Rs. 60,27,000/- during the F/Y 2013-14.Subsequently, a proposal for u/s 263 was sent to Ld. Pr.CIT-9, Kolkata on 24.04.2018 as the order passedu/s 143(3) dated 18.08.2016 was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue. During the course of hearing of proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961, the A/R of the assessee could not explain the sources of above cash deposit before the Ld. Pr.C.LT-9, Kolkata. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr.C.I.T-9, Kolkata, restored the case back to the undersigned in u/s 263 on the issue of unexplained money.Notice u/s 142(1) dated. 20.09.2019 was issued to the assessee. In response to the same there was no response, as a result of which, assessment u/s 143(3) was done by making an addition of Rs. 77,60,476/-u/s 69A 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. 3. The Ld. AR challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that CIT(A) has passed an order on mechanical basis as it was completely a non-speaking order and there was no adjudication on the issue raised by the assessee. The Ld. AR submits that assessing officers has also passed an assessment order in absence of response submitted by the Assessee. The Ld. AR has further submitted that there was a complete violation bridge of section 250(6) as the appellate order is completely a non-speaking and mechanical order and in this way the order is invalid.The Ld. AR further submits that addition of

ITA No.2752/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2014-15 Rs. 77,60,476/- u/s 69A is illegal and unsustainable as Section 69A applies only to unexplained physical money found in possession not to bank deposits. The Ld. AR further submits that original assessment had already treated the additional deposits as business receipts and applied in net profit rate of 8.99% to the full turn over. It has further been submitted that once preventive income is applied, no separate addition is permissible. Contrary to that Ld. DR supports the impugned order. 3. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order of the lower authority we find that after issuance of notice u/s 142(1) there was no response from the side of the assessee. A show cause notice has also been issued to the assessee but there was no response, as a result of which assessment was done by addition of Rs. 77,60,476/-.We have gone through the order passed by the CIT(A) and find that there was no discussion on the issue raised rather the CIT(A) has firstly hold that there was a delay in filing of appeal of 27 days and no condonation petition has been filed.The impugned order reveals that CIT(A) has only written the submission of the assessee and the case laws but there was no discussion on merit rather simply dismissed the appeal.We donot find any discussion and adjudication in merit of the case. We find substance that order passed by the CIT(A) is completely a mechanical order and non-speaking order. Going over the order passed, we are inclined to remit the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) with a direction to pass order on merit after discussing the case of the assessee and after proper hearing of the assessee. Accordingly, the order passed by the CIT(A) is hereby set aside,appeal of assessee is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for passing a fresh order after hearing the assessee.

ITA No.2752/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2014-15 In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 16th July , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

[Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated: 16 . 07.2026.

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.2752/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2014-15