M/S. C M DATTA,SILCHAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE, SILCHAR

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [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. The assessee has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 75 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 75 days is condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

ITA No.87/GTY/2026; A.Y: 2017-18 M/s. C M Datta 3. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a partnership firm and distributor of products manufacture by ITC Limited. For the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee filed its return declaring total income of Rs.58,29,510/- and claiming refund of Rs.2,231/- was also granted to the assessee. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny in verifying the large cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. During the assessment proceedings, the details called for were furnished by the assessee and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income of assessee at Rs.70,20,897/- by treating a part of the cash deposited during the demonetisation period amounting to Rs.11,91,387/- as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act. The books of account of the assessee were duly audited and the sales were recorded in the software provided by the ITC, Limited. However, the Assessing Officer disbelieved that the cash deposits in bank were excessive and on an ad hoc basis 50% of such cash amount was treated as undisclosed income u/s 69A of the Act and taxed higher rate u/s 115BBE of the Act. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where notices were issued to the assessee. However, assessee could not comply with the same due to health issues of one of the partners who was looking after the matter. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Still aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR categorically submitted that all the transactions were relates to sales of products of ITC, Limited and the same were duly recorded in software maintained by the company. It was further submitted that all the transactions were duly recorded in the books of account and therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was excessive and contrary to the provisions of the law.

ITA No.87/GTY/2026; A.Y: 2017-18 M/s. C M Datta It was also contended that provisions of section 115BBE of the Act could not be invoked, since the transaction were duly recorded in the books of account and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the authorities below and submitted that the authorities below have rightly passed the impugned order. 7. We, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record. We find that primary grievance of assessee is that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order that adequate opportunity was not granted to the assessee to represent its case. The contention of the assessee is that all the transactions were duly recorded in books of account and were also reflected in the software maintained by ITC, Limited, therefore, the prima facie, the transactions cannot be disbelieved without proper examination. The assessee has also contended that the transactions can be verified from the online software provide by ITC, Limited. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after examining the books of account and other supporting evidences of the assessee. The assessee shall furnish all necessary details and documents in support of its claim and if the same was found to be correct, the Ld. CIT(A) shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) without any fail.

ITA No.87/GTY/2026; A.Y: 2017-18 M/s. C M Datta 8. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 08th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 08.05.2026. 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