ANITA PRAMANIK,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, in the case of assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, no return has been filed, and information was received that assessee has deposited good amount of cash in her bank account. Accordingly, notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee but assessee did not file return, as the assessee did not turn up before the Ld. Assessing Officer, the Ld. Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 144 of the Act and notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act to the assessee’s bank and from the information given by the bank of the assessee. It was found

I.T.A. No.335/Kol/2026 Anita Pramanik; AY: 2017-18 that cash deposit made by the assessee during the demonetisation period was Rs.10,94,000/-. Accordingly, assessee was summoned u/s 131 of the Act to appear before the Assessing Officer in person but assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer. Ultimately, the Ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of material available on record found that the total deposit of Rs.16,67,494/- was made during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.17,79,494/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer due to non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that there is a delay of 273 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. In this connection, the condonation petition along with affidavit has been filed, stating reasons for such delay. We, after considering the same and satisfied that there is a reasonable cause for delay, accordingly condoned the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and adjudicate the issue on merit of the case. The contention of the Ld. AR is that assessee is an old lady and could not pursue the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and even before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, another chance may be given to the assessee to substantiate its claim by remanding the issue to the file of Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the authorities below.

I.T.A. No.335/Kol/2026 Anita Pramanik; AY: 2017-18 6. We, after hearing the rival submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that in the present case of the assessee, the assessment order as well as the Ld. CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte and assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued by the authorities below. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we remand back the issue to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to re- examine the issue afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. 7. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 30th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated: 30.04.2026. DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

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