DEVBRAT SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 29,, KOLKATA

INTHE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.1970/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Devbrat Singh, ,.................................................................................Appellant 38/2 Mahim Halder Street, Kalighat, Kolkata- 700026 [PAN No-BBIPS7736M] Vs. ACIT, Circle 29, ..…………..…………………....……….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road, (South) Kolkata- 700031. Appearances by: Sri Rip Das, CA,appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Sri. Bonnie Deb Barma, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ,appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 21, 2026 Date of pronouncing theorder : April 24 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.12.2018 of the Office of the Commissioner Of Income Tax, passed under Section 143(3) of the Assessment Year 2016-17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

ITA No.1970/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 3. The brief facts of the case of the assessee, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 28,79,620/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) after making the following addition of Rs. 1,35,96,187 being 10% of the salary and wages incurred during the year on the alleged ground of payments made to the payees without proper authentication. 2) Prior period expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,42,227/- suspected to have been paid in respect of employee’s contribution to PF of earlier year. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the CITA wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was non-compliance on behalf of the assessee. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) as the order passed by the CIT(A) is not on merit rather it has been passed as an ex-parte order. His submission is that for the interest of justice appeal of the assessee be restored to file of the CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merit by affording an opportunity to the assessee to place his case. Ld. DR did not raise any objection in emitting the appeal before the CIT(A). 5. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that assessee was complete non-responsive before the CIT(A). CIT(A) has passed an ex-party order when assessee failed to respond of multiple notices. The CIT(A) in its order has held that since the assessee failed to respond, hence, we constrained to uphold the addition made by the AO. The

ITA No.1970/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 order has not been passed after the hearing of assessee. The prayer of the assessee is that for the interest of justice, assessee has to give a one more opportunity to place his case before the CIT(A). Going over the order passed by the CITA and considering the submission made by the AR, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merit by giving an opportunity to the assessee to place his case.The order passed by the CIT(A)is hereby set aside, the appeal as remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 24th April , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated:. 24. 04.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) 3

ITA No.1970/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches