NAWAL KISHORE BANKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 32(4),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 519/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 July 2026AY 2011-20122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish all required documents.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 1,24,76,500 to the assessee's income under Section 68 for undisclosed income, citing a lack of response to notices. The assessee claimed partial compliance and that their submissions were not considered by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was justified without properly considering the assessee's submissions and providing adequate opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 10.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.519/KOL/2026 (Assessment Year:2011-12) Nawal Kishore Banka, ITO, 8/1/13, Loudon Street, Minto Park, Vs. Ward – 32(4), Kolkata – 700017, West Bengal Kolkata [PAN:AEGPB8248H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Manish Tiwari, AR Respondent by: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”], dated 22.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.

2.

At the time of hearing, learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the there was part compliance before the Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’), which has been mentioned by the AO on Page No.4 of the assessment order, wherein the AO mentioned that there was no reply / documentary evidences furnished by assessee in response to various statutory and show cause notices and finally the amount was added of Rs.1,24,76,500/- u/s 68 of the Act as undisclosed income. Similarly, before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the

ITA No.519/Kol/2026/AY 2011-12 Nawal Kishore Banka written submissions ,however, the appellate authority has not considered the plea of the assessee. The ld. AR prayed that issue may be restored to the file of AO for re-adjudication of the issue.

3.

On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the revenue left the issue on the Bench.

4.

We have heard rival submission and perused the materials available on record. We find that there was part compliance as the AO specifically mentioned in Para No.4 of the assessment order. The AO issued various notices but the assessee failed to respond properly. Therefore, in the interests of justice and fair play, we restore the issue to the file of AO after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee may be provided all required details/documents before the AO and decide the issue afresh on merits without unreasonable adjournment.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 10/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 10/07/2026 SAMANTA आदेश �ȧ ĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent. 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��आयकर] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकर] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 5. 6. �ȡ�[ फाईल/ Guard file.

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Asstt.Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →