ANAND SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 219/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 June 2026AY 2023-20245 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the circumstances, granted one more opportunity by remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The AO was given liberty to draw adverse inferences in case of further non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return for AY 2023-24 was assessed ex parte by the AO due to non-compliance with notices, leading to multiple additions and disallowances. The CIT(A) condoned the delay and set aside the assessment, remanding it to the AO for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee deserves another opportunity for assessment despite prior non-compliance, and the validity of the ex parte assessment and subsequent penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 270A,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 145(3),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 80C,Section 80D,Section 250,Section 251(1)(a),Section 249(3)

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 2023-24 dated 12.01.2026. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. THAT the Ld. A.O. disallowed 30% of purchase amounting to Ks. 12,67,96,304/- amounting to Rs. 3,80,38,891/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 And also initiated a penalty proceeding under section 270A(9)(a) Separately for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting by misrepresentation or suppression of fact without going through the facts and circumstances of the case which is unjustified, bad in and against the natural law of justice and must be deleted:

2.

THAT The learned assessing officer disallowed the purchase amounting to Rs. 1,65,92,100/- and add it to the gross profit of the appellant and also initiated a penalty proceeding under section 270A(9)(a) separately for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting by misrepresentation or ITA No(s). 219/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2023-24 Anand Singh. suppression of fact without going through the facts and circumstances of the case which is unjustified, bad in law and against the natural law of justice and must be deleted;

3.

THAT They learned assessing officer Added the capital introduced in the relevant assessment year amounting to Rs. 5,95,365/ And treated it as unexplained cash credit In accordance with the provisions 8 of section as of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and levied tax @60% On the alleged undisclosed income under section 115BBE and also initiated a penalty proceeding under section 271 AAC of the Income Tax Act 1961 Without going through the facts and circumstances of the case which is unjustified, bad in law and against the natural law of justice,

4.

THAT The learned assessing officer ness has wrongfully treated Sundry Creditors amounting to Rs. 2,07,90,505/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and taxed it under the provisions of section 115BBE @60% on the said alleged undisclosed income And also initiated a penalty proceeding under section 271AAC separately of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without going through the facts and circumstances of the case which is unjustified, bad in law and against the natural law of justice and must be deleted;

5.

THAT the learned assessing officer as disallowed the expenses claimed the appellant amounting to Rs. 272,249/ in the relevant assessment year and also initiated a penalty proceeding under section 270A(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 without going through the facts and circumstances of the case which is unjustified, bad in law and against the natural law of justice and must be deleted;

6.

THAT The learned assessing officer disallowed the claim by the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- Under section 80C and 800 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and also initiated a penalty proceeding under section 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961 without going through the facts and circumstances of the case which is unjustified, bad in law and against the natural law of justice and must be deleted

7.

THAT the learned assessing officer issued penalty notice under section 270A, 271AAC, 272A(1)(d) and section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 Without going through the facts and circumstances of the case Which is unjustified, bad in law and against the natural law of justice and must be dropped and deleted.

8.

THAT the appellant craves leave to add/alter/modify/delete further grounds of appeal during the course of hearing.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2023-24 on 17.08.2023 declaring an income of ITA No(s). 219/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2023-24 Anand Singh. ₹18,42,480/-. Due to non-compliance by the assessee to the notices issued, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') passed an ex parte best judgment assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The Ld. AO made multiple additions and disallowances; (a) disallowance of ₹3,80,38,891/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194Q of the Act on purchases; (b) addition of ₹1,65,92,100/- to the gross profit for bogus purchases after rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act; (c) addition of ₹5,95,365/- for unexplained capital introduction u/s 68 of the Act; (d) addition of ₹2,07,90,505/- for unexplained sundry creditors u/s 68 of the Act; (e) proportionate disallowance of expenses amounting to ₹2,72,249/-; and (f) disallowance of ₹1,10,000/- under Chapter VI-A deductions amounting to u/s 80C and 80D of the Act. Consequently, the Ld. AO assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹7,79,41,590/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a petition for condonation of delay explaining that the delay was due to professional negligence and lack of timely intimation by the previous chartered accountant. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the submission and condoned the delay u/s 249(3) of the Act. On the merits of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessment was completed ex parte and that the assessee deserved an opportunity to adduce relevant details and evidences. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Ld. CIT(A) exercised powers under the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act to set aside the impugned assessment and refer the case back to the Ld. AO for making a fresh assessment after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) modified the action of the Ld. AO and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Assessment Year(s) 2023-24 Anand Singh.

4.

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

5.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR.

6.

We note that the assessment order was passed ex parte u/s 144 of the Act and the assessee did not comply to the notices issued. Normally such appeal should have been dismissed as multiple opportunities were provided by the Ld. AO but no compliance was made by the assessee including the compliance to the show cause notices issued. Even before the Ld. CIT(A) no compliance was made. We further find that the grounds of appeal refer to the additions made by the Ld. AO and not to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which has been passed in accordance with law. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow one more opportunity of being heard and remand the case before the Ld. AO. In the event of non-compliance by the assessee before the Ld. AO, the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to draw adverse inference.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd June, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 22.06.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Assessment Year(s) 2023-24 Anand Singh. Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Anand Singh, 314/A, Rabindra Sarani, Nutan Bazar, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700006. 2. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata, 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

4.

CIT-

5.

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

6.

Guard File. //// By order

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →