CHETAN MEHTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 61,, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 360/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2026AY 2020-20213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, as the previous order was passed due to non-compliance without adjudicating the case. The penalty appeal was also set aside as the main quantum appeal was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee received remuneration as a partner but declared it as presumptive income under Section 44ADA, which was incorrect. The Assessing Officer added the remaining amount to the total income and initiated penalty proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee correctly declared remuneration as presumptive income, and whether the CIT(A) order passed due to non-compliance should be set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44ADA,Section 148,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Ruchika Sharma, DR
Hearing: 27.04.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

ITA No. 359 & 360/KOL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Chetan Mehta Block-3, Flat-6A, Prasad Exotica, DCIT, Circle 61, 71/3, Canal Circular Road, Bamboo Villa, Circle 61, Vs. Kadapara, Kolkata-700054, Kolkata-700014, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ARZPM4169Q Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, DR Date of hearing: 27.04.2026 Date of pronouncement: 15.05.2026 O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(E)”] dated 25.11.2025 for A.Y. 2020-21 one against quantum and other relates to penalty.

2.

The facts in brief are that the assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income of ₹19,08,610/- for AY 2020-21. As per the information on insight portal during the year under consideration, the assessee has received ₹46,32,605/- as remuneration as Partner from Dhruv A & Co. However, the remuneration received has not been correctly shown in the return of income filed as the assessee has shown the remuneration received as presumptive income u/s 44ADA of the Act and has shown only 50% of ₹45,16,096/i.e. ₹22,58,048/- as his income from remuneration. As assessee has not carried out any business

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee.

4.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred the appeal before us.

5.

The ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that appeal of the assessee be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for passing a fresh order on merit after affording an opportunity to the assessee to place his case.

6.

Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order.

7.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respected parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has passed an order when there was none compliance on the part of the assessee. The order was passed without adjudicating on merit of the case as there was no compliance. The prayer of the ld. AR is that the assessee has to be given an opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT (A). Considering the submissions and also keeping in view the

8.

Other appeals i.e. ITA No.360/2026 related to the penalty u/s 270A of the Act. Since, the main order i.e. quantum appeal has already been set aside, hence, the order passed u/s 270A of the Act has got no relevance. Accordingly, the same is also hereby set aside.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 15.05.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 44ADA

All 98 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44ADA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →