JAYANTA GOGOI,DIBRUGARH vs. ITO-W 1(2) DIB, DIBRUGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 127/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 June 2026AY 2019-207 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and make submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income and did not comply with notices during reassessment and appellate proceedings. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte, treating cash deposits as professional income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudication and whether the reassessment proceedings and assessment were validly initiated and completed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 44ADA,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & 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 2019-20 dated 10.02.2026. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "GROUND 1 Description: Illegal dismissal without adjudication Ground of Appeal: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the issues on merits, solely on the alleged ground of non-prosecution. The learned CIT(A)

failed to appreciate that he is statutorily obligated to dispose of an appeal on merits and cannot summarily dismiss the same for want of prosecution. The impugned order has been passed without considering the material available on record, without recording any independent findings and without dealing with the grounds raised by the appellant, thereby rendering the order non-speaking, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside and the matter deserves to be restored for adjudication on merits. GROUND 2 Description: Bona fide and sufficient cause for non-compliance Ground of Appeal: The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the alleged non- compliance on the part of the appellant was neither wilful nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. The appellant resides in a remote rural area with severely limited internet connectivity, where access to network is intermittent and available only upon travelling to nearby town areas. Further, no notices were received through physical mode. Due to such constraints and limited access to professional assistance, the appellant could not effectively respond during appellate proceedings. The learned CIT(A), without appreciating these genuine constraints and without granting a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, proceeded to dismiss the appeal, which is unjustified and in violation of the principles of natural justice. GROUND 3 Description: Invalid reopening u/s 147 Ground of Appeal: The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 without valid assumption of juri iction and without proper application of mind. The reopening has been made merely on the basis of high-value cash deposits, without establishing any live nexus between such deposits and income chargeable to tax escaping assessment. The reasons recorded are based on general information and lack independent verification or tangible material. Mere existence of bank deposits, in absence of any evidence to show that the same represent undisclosed income, cannot justify initiation of reassessment proceedings. The reopening is therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed.

GROUND 4 Description: Wrong application of section 44ADA Ground of Appeal: The learned AO has erred in invoking section 44ADA and treating the appellant as a professional. The appellant is a CSP operator earning commission income and does not fall within the specified professions u/s 44AA. Hence, application of section 44ADA is invalid and without juri iction. GROUND 5 Description: CSP transactions wrongly treated as income Ground of Appeal: The learned AO and CIT(A) failed to appreciate the true nature of the appellant's business as a Bank Customer Service Point (CSP). The appellant acts merely as an intermediary facilitating banking transactions on behalf of customers. The cash deposits represent customer funds routed through the banking system and do not constitute income of the appellant. Treating such deposits as income is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. GROUND 6 Description: Arbitrary estimation @50% Ground of Appeal: The estimation of income @50% of total deposits is arbitrary, excessive and without any basis. No evidence has been brought on record to justify such estimation. The addition is purely on presumptions and liable to be deleted. GROUND 7 Description: Real income ignored Ground of Appeal: The authorities below failed to appreciate that only real income can be taxed. The appellant's actual income is only commission of ₹2,90,591 as reflected in Form 26AS, whereas the entire bank deposits have been wrongly treated as income. GROUND 8 Description: Violation of natural justice in assessment Ground of Appeal: The assessment completed u/s 144 is bad in law as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry and passed the order without adequate verification and without considering the peculiar nature of CSP business. GROUND 9 Description: Excessive and unjust demand Ground of Appeal: The addition has resulted in an unjust and disproportionate demand of ₹₹2,83,13,366against actual income of ₹2,90,591, which is arbitrary, excessive and liable to be deleted. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing."

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file the return of income for AY 2019-20. Based on the information that the assessee had received commission income of ₹2,90,591/- and also had made cash deposits amounting to ₹7,43,91,783/- in a current account in the bank, reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s 147 of the Act. Despite the issuance of notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, and show-cause notices u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee failed to comply. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 21.02.2024. In the absence of any explanation, he treated the commission receipt of ₹2,90,591/- as business income besides presuming based on the subsequent years' returns that the assessee was engaged in a legal profession, also treated the total cash deposits of ₹7,43,91,783/- as gross receipts from the profession and estimated income @50% thereof, resulting in an addition of ₹3,71,95,891/- u/s 44ADA of the Act. The total income was thus assessed at ₹3,74,86,482/-. Aggrieved with the ITA No(s). 127/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 370 days, which the Ld. CIT(A) condoned. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) provided multiple opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee failed to furnish any details or make submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and decided the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, 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.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld as the assessee had failed to win the opportunity of being heard despite notices being issued for hearing.

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 before the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. As the assessee contends that he had only earned commission on which TDS was deducted as reflected in Form No. 26AS, while the Ld. AO has treated 50% of the deposits as professional income without any business as the assessee is a CSP agent and receives only commission on the collection made on behalf of the bank. We, therefore, hereby set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the assessment proceedings before the Ld. AO so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to the Ld. AO for making the assessment 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 his grounds of appeal 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 2nd June, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 02.06.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Jayanta Gogoi, Tamulikhat, Podumoni, Gandhia, Tengakhat, Dibrugarh, Assam, 786103. 2. ITO, Ward-1(2), Dibrugarh, Pushkara House, Natun Gaon, Dibrugarh, Assam, 786008. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

4.

CIT-

5.

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

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 →