COMETT STAFFING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAVAN, KOLKATA

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income on 03.10.2023 declaring total income of Rs.1,53,65,024/-. Subsequently the case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny Assessment under CASS for the reason of lower amount disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) in ITR in comparison to audit report and secondly low net profit shown by certain specific business codes including other services compared to total revenue from operations. During assessment proceedings, the assessee has neither submitted any reply nor filed any documentary evidences. Therefore, professional fees of Rs.2,84,65,400/- remained unexplained and the ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee during assessment proceedings why the amount of Rs.28,46,540/- (10% of Rs.2,84.65,400/-) should not be disallowed under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act for the FY 2022-23 relevant to AY 2023-24. On perusal of the books of account, it is observed that the assessee has claimed other expenses under the head “employees benefit expenses” amounting to Rs.43,72,70,300/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee neither submitted any reply for furnished any documentary evidence in support of its claim. The assessee was asked to furnish as to why the amount of Rs.4,37,27,030/- (10% of Rs.43,72,70,300/-) should not be disallowed under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act for the FY 2022-23 relevant to AY 2023-24. Therefore, professional fees of Rs.2,84,65,400/- and employees benefit expenses of Rs.43,72,70,300/- aggregating to

The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 10th December, 2025.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh.

At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to our notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order completed the assessment assessing the total income at Rs.6,26,51,410/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/05/2026.