SUDHIR GHOSH,TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS (N) vs. ITO, WARD 50(5), KOLKATA, KOLKATA NORTH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 365/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 June 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not in a position to file all evidence before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision after examining the documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but failed to respond to notices from the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals). The Assessing Officer treated demonetization deposits as unexplained money and added them to the income. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)

ITA No. 365/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sudhir Ghosh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 365/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sudhir Ghosh,…………………..……….……….…Appellant 4 No. Bijoy Nagar, PO & PS: Naihati, North 24-Parganas-743165, W.B. [PAN:AMVPG4096P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-50(5), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex, DS-IV, Kolkata-700067 Appearances by: Ms. Mou Saha, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Ms. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 09, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: June 22, 2026 O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 06.12.2023 passed for Assessment Year 2017-2018.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 online on 31.03.2018

ITA No. 365/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sudhir Ghosh declaring total income of Rs.3,29,230/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Thereafter notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2018 was generated through ITBA module and was issued and served upon the assessee. Further notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 30.05.2019 along with a set of questionnaires by taking inference from the reason of selection under CASS and served upon the assessee. Since assessee against the notices did not reply, a show-cause notice was issued on 26.12.2019 through e-mail as well as speed post to the assessee. Neither the assessee nor his representative appeared and did not make any compliance. It is seen from the record that the assessee has deposited Rs.29,60,500/- during the demonetization period and Rs.1,17,81,000/- during the year under consideration. As the assessee did not make any compliance in support to substantiate of his claim, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the deposited amount at the time of demonetization amounting to Rs.29,60,500/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act and added to the total income of assessee. Besides that, the income comes from the business and profession to the tune of Rs.7,05,640/- [8% of Rs.88,20,500/- (i.e. Rs.1,17,81,000/- minus Rs.29,60,500/-)] was added to the total income of the assessee by the ld. Assessing Officer. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer determined the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs.39,95,370/- under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

ITA No. 365/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sudhir Ghosh 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals) in his appellate order dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer saying that as the assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of the unexplained money u/s 69A, treated by the ld. Assessing Officer, deposited in the bank account during demonetization period and since the ld. Assessing Officer inspite of giving sufficient opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his case, the assessee failed to rebut during the appellate proceedings, therefore, did not find any infirmity in the order of ld. Assessing Officer.

4.

Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. Authorized Representative on behalf of the assessee filed an adjournment petition before the Tribunal at the time of hearing praying to adjourn the hearing, i.e. on 09.06.2026 for not preparing himself to argue the appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it necessary to adjourn the hearing at this stage. The prayer for adjournment of hearing is rejected.

5.

At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. CIT(Appeals) just simply upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into merit of the case. He prayed before the Bench to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

ITA No. 365/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sudhir Ghosh 6. On the other hand, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee failed to offer any explanation/supporting documents in respect of the grounds of appeal raised by him before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. D.R. pleaded that inspite of sufficient opportunities provided to substantiate his case, the assessee did not produce any supporting documents in support of his claim. The ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the opinion that inspite of several opportunities granted, the assessee has not furnished any submission in support of the grounds of appeal during the appellate proceedings and dismissed the appeal of assessee saying that he did not see any reason to disturb the categorical findings of the ld. Assessing Officer regarding assessment of the assessed total income of assessee at Rs.39,95,370/-. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

7.

I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim before the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(Appeals) just simply upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into merit of the case as the assessee failed to appear before him or furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim so that he can substantiate his grounds of appeal. The ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the opinion that as the assessee failed to avail the opportunities offered on various occasions from time to time, it is understood that assessee is not keen to pursue the appeal as per law and accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be

ITA No. 365/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sudhir Ghosh dismissed for non-prosecution by the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the assessee was not in a position to file some of the evidences before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the issue afresh and to examine these documents. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I 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 of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/06/2026.

Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 22nd day of June, 2026

Copies to :(1) Sudhir Ghosh, 4 No. Bijoy Nagar, PO & PS: Naihati, North 24-Parganas-743165, W.B.

ITA No. 365/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sudhir Ghosh (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-50(5), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex, DS-IV, Kolkata-700067 (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order

Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →