DEBABRATA CHAKRABORTY,WEST MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, RANGE 1(1), , WEST MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1206/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 July 2026AY 2014-20155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and, considering the lack of proper opportunity for the assessee before the lower authorities, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted to the AO for reassessment de novo, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file an income tax return for AY 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on cash deposits of ₹1,53,36,418/- and made an addition of the entire amount to the assessee's income ex parte. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte due to delay and non-cooperation.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire cash deposits in a bank account can be treated as income without proper examination, and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, 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 2014-15 dated 25.02.2025. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 33 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the assessee fell ill since 22.03.2025 and was advised complete bed rest for 2 months by his doctor, so he could not file the appeal within the stipulated time, and upon his recovery, he contacted his authorized representative to proceed with filing the appeal. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the ITA No(s). 1206/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

That the determination of total income a sum of Rs. 1,53,36,481/- was unjustified, illegal and so the entire fabricated income shall liable to be quashed.

2.

That the A.O. is mis-directed both in facts and law as the entire deposit can not be considered as income. Hence, such determination of tax liability shall liable to be deleted.

3.

That the A.O. ought to have consider the other aspects like withdrawal of amount from bank and other related business expenses. After considering such deposit and withdrawal analysis, the net income can be ascertain but without such mechanism that liability of tax can't be sustainable in the eye of law.

4.

That the certain percentage of the total deposit can be considered as net profit and determination of tax payment liability can be justified and reasonable in the eye of law.

5.

That the petitioner craves leave to file any further grounds of appeal and/or amend/alter any grounds of appeal in any time or at the time of hearing stage."

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file the return of income for the AY 2014-15. Based upon the information that the assessee made cash deposits of ₹1,53,36,418/- during FY 2013-14 in his savings bank account maintained with UCO Bank, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. The notices issued remained uncomplied with by the assessee; consequently, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') finalized the proceedings ex parte and completed the assessment to the best of his judgment, adding the entire cash deposit amount of ₹1,53,36,418/- to the total income of the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the ITA No(s). 1206/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who did not condone the delay of 211 days in filing the appeal before him. On the merits of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that despite being given multiple opportunities during the appellate proceedings, the assessee remained uncooperative and failed to submit any response. Therefore, finding no infirmity with the assessment order, the Ld. CIT(A) also passed an ex parte order and held that the Ld. AO had made the addition on merits after thoroughly analysing the facts. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there was cash deposited in a bank account which has been added to the income of the assessee vide order under section 144 of the Act. It was also submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A) as well, proper representation could not be made on account of illness of the assessee. The reasons for non- compliance are stated to be the illness of the assessee and it was requested that one more opportunity may be provided in the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO. The assessee has also filed an affidavit stating that for the same assessment year, the penalty appeal filed before the Tribunal was sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and has requested that the appeal against the quantum addition may also be remanded before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter is remanded to the Ld. AO as the ITA No(s). 1206/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 assessment was ex parte. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but did not oppose the request of the assessee.

6.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that the request of the Ld. AR to remand the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided as in the absence of proper explanation, the entire bank deposits had been treated as unexplained and added to the income. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of the relief claimed against the additions made and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 6th July, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 06.07.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) ITA No(s). 1206/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Debabrata Chakraborty, Monidaha, Medinipur Sadar, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, 721102. 2. ITO, Range-1(1), West Medinipur, Income Tax Office, Behind Judges Court, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, 721101. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

4.

CIT-

5.

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

6.

Guard File. //// By order

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →