MRS. RUPA RAY,BARUIPUR, KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1137/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 July 2026AY 2020-20219 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the assessee's explanation regarding illness and lack of awareness of the CIT(A) order warranted a fresh look. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of ₹64,41,292/- under Section 68 for unexplained loans and credits. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, claiming a lack of proper notice and opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without ascertaining proper service of notices, and whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 1137/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2020-21 Mrs. Rupa Ray I.T.O., Ward-25(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AXEPR9484J Appearances: Assessee represented by : B.B. Payra, AR. Department represented by : Praveen Das Chowdhury, (Sr. DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 06.07.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 14.07.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2020-21 dated 22.09.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Appellant on the ground of non- compliances to the Notices issued u/s.250 of the Act on various dates. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in non-ascertaining the fact whether the Notices issued u/s.250 of the Act were duly served on the Appellant or not before dismissing the Appeal summarily. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) should have issued at least one Notice u/s 250 of the Act through the registered/Speed Post to the Address as noted in Form No.35.

“8.1 The only effective ground in this appeal is related to addition of Rs. 64,41,292/- by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In this regard, it is reiterated that the appellant filed her return of income belatedly on 18.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 43,81,320/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Various notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer. Though adjournment was sought on one occasion, the appellant failed to submit any substantive details or documentary evidence. Consequently, the assessment was completed under section 144 read with section 144B of the Act on 28.09.2022, determining total income at Rs. 1,08,22,612/- by making an addition of Rs. 64,41,292/- under section 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained loans, sundry creditors, and advances against flats. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal contending that the Assessing Officer acted arbitrarily and without application of mind; that her business as a promoter and developer requires heavy inflow of funds through loans and advances against flats as a matter of commercial expediency; that she had submitted explanations and documents which were not considered; and that the assessment order was completed in violation of the principles

7.

Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the issue is remanded before him. Since the assessee could file reply in respect of only five issues raised by the Ld. AO out of nine mentioned, the assessee is also directed to file reply on the remaining issues before the Ld. CIT(A) which, being in the nature of additional evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and record reasons for the admission or rejection of the same as required in sub-rule (2) thereof. The Ld. AO shall also be granted an opportunity of being heard as per Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules. For ready reference, Rule 46A is reproduced as under:

“46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely :— (a) where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer ; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or (d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing the reasons for its admission.

Sd/- Sd/- [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 14.07.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

More judgments on Section 68

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →