P.C. DEY AND SON DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HABRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 14(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 561/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 July 2026AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits due to non-compliance by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a large sum of cash, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained and added to the income under Section 68. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of non-compliance without adjudicating the merits, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH KOLKATA

BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.561/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 P. C. Dey And Son Distributors Pvt. Ltd. ……....…………………....Appellant Deshbandhu Park, W.B. 743263. [PAN: AAFCP9030K] vs. DCIT, Circle-14(2), Kolkata…..….……....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Raman Garg, CIT- DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing :July 02, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order :July 14 ,2026 आदेश / ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.02.2024of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.9,12,58,000/- and the Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained and added the same u/s 68 of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-compliance.

4.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

I.T.A. No.561/Kol/2024 5. We have considered the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance without going into the merits of the case and the assessee failed to submit relevant documents before the ld. CIT(A). Under the circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for re-examination after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to positively cooperate in the set aside proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 14th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 14 .07.2026. RS 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

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →