GAUTAM BHAUMIK,KOLKATA vs. WARD 62(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1777/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 August 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired before the CIT(A)'s order, and the legal heirs were not impleaded. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication after impleading the legal representatives.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return for AY 2013-14. Proceedings were initiated due to substantial cash deposits. The assessee claimed the source was cash received from his mother's property sale, but the AO added the entire amount. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the death of the assessee and impleading legal heirs, and whether the source of cash deposits was adequately considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Yogesh Kumar US&Shri Gopalan Gurusamy]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member &Shri Gopalan Gurusamy, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 1777/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gautam Bhaumik (Represented as Vs. ITO, Ward-62(1), Kolkata an authorized signatory of Gautam Bhaumik) (since deceased)

(PAN: ADZPB 8875 A) ( अपीलाथ� ) Respondent / ��यथ� Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 19.08.2026 क� �त�थ Date of Pronouncement/ 31.08.2026 आदेश उ�घोषणा क� �त�थ For the Appellant/ Shir Manoj Kataruka, AR �नधा�रती क� ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Debasish Biswas, JCIT राज�व क� ओर से

ORDER / आदेश Per Gopalan Gurusamy, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 12.03.2026 for the AY 2013-14. 2. Brief facts on record are that the assessee did not file his return for AY 2013- 14. Based on information that there was substantial cash deposited in the savings bank account of the assessee, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. In response to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income

2 I.T.A. No.1777/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gautam Bhaumik declaring total income of Rs. 5,34,120/-. The Assessing Officer noted that there was cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 22,47,500/- in his bank account and also incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 2,02,844/- against the credit card bills. In response, the assessee had explained that the assessee’s mother Smt. Uma Bhoumik had sold an immovable property for Rs. 1,30,00,000/- and had received Rs. 25,00,000/- in cash, as part of consideration, and which was stated to be the source for the cash deposit in bank account and also for the expenditure incurred towards credit card bills. The Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee’s explanation and made the impugned addition of Rs. 24,50,344/- .

3.

Against the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal as there was non-compliance to the hearing notices issued.

Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee expired during the course of appeal hearing before Ld. CIT(A). It was also stated that on account of the death of the assessee, the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) could not be complied with. The Ld. A.R referred to para 6.2 of the Ld. CIT(A) where the Ld. CIT(A) recorded the expiry of assessee on 09.01.2023. Besides it was argued that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the various documentary evidences produced before the Assessing Officer to prove the source for the cash and the expenditure incurred. These documents were relied on during the appellate proceeding in support of contention that the impugned cash of Rs. 25,00,000/- was received from the sale of property owned by the assessee’s mother. However, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence on record and dismissed the appeal.

5.

The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of the both the authorities.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the appellate order against Mr. Gautam Bhoumik who had expired at the time of

3 I.T.A. No.1777/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gautam Bhaumik appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). It is necessary that the legal heirs of the assessee are impleaded and taken on record for continuance of the appeal. This procedure was not followed. From the assessee’s side also, these steps were not taken. Considering these factual scenario, we set aside the impugned assessment and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to implead the representative assessee on record, and adjudicate the issues afresh on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 31st August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(Yogesh Kumar US) (Gopalan Gurusamy) Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Dated: 31st August, 2026 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Gautam Bhoumik, Flat 302 Sailaneer, 1162, Kalikapur, Purbalok, Kalikapur SO, Kalikapur, Kolkata-700099 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-62(1), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →