MASHAPHY DEBBARMA,AGARTALA vs. ITO, WARD-1, AGARTALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 117/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 June 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the proceedings to the AO for de novo reassessment. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to present legal issues and evidence, given the lack of proper compliance at earlier stages.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2019-20. Proceedings were initiated based on cash withdrawals and commission income. The assessee remained unresponsive, leading to an ex-parte assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to delay and lack of substantiation.

What were the issues?

Procedural irregularities in reassessment proceedings, including lack of proper notice, non-compliance by the assessee, and the validity of the assessment order. The Tribunal also considered the need for a fair opportunity to address legal and factual grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 151,Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 10(26),Section 142(1),Section 151A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SONJOY SARMA & 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 07.01.2026. The assessee sought adjournment by filing an application but since there was no justification for seeking the adjournment, therefore, the same was rejected and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the order of re-assessment dated 15.02.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act by the ITA No(s). 117/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 learned Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (AO) is bad in law, facts and procedure.

2.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that show cause notice dated 15.03.2023 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act requiring the assessee to make compliance on or before 21.03.2023 is bad in law and consequently, the order of re-assessment is bad in law and untenable.

3.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the show cause notice dated 15.03.2023 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act having not been served upon the assessee, the order of re-assessment is without juri iction.

4.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that SCN dated 15.03.2023 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act having been issued on the basis of information that the assessee has deposited in cash in bank ₹32,60,236/-, the order dated 27.03.2023 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act on the ground of withdrawal of ₹32,60,236/-, the said order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and shows that no proper approval of the higher authority u/s 151 of the Act was obtained and consequently, the order of re- assessment is without juri iction, bad in law and untenable.

5.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the order dated 27.03.2023 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act having been passed by traversing beyond the SCN dated 15.03.2023 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act, the same is bad in law and consequently, the order of re-assessment is without juri iction, bad in law and untenable.

6.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that in absence of any valid approval u/s 151 of the Act of the competent higher authority after due application of mind having been obtained, the entire re-assessment proceeding is vitiated and consequently, the order of re-assessment is bad in law and untenable.

7.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that in absence of service of 148 notice dated 27.03.2023 upon the assessee, the order of re-assessment is without juri iction.

8.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2023 having been issued in violation of mandate u/s 151A of the Act by automated allocation process, the same is bad in law and consequently, the order of re-assessment is bad in law and unsustainable.

9.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the addition of ₹32,60,236/- made by the Id. AO by invoking provisions u/s 69C of the Act for which no show cause notice was ever issued to the assessee, the same was bad in law and unsustainable.

10.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. AO was not justified in arbitrarily adding ₹32,60,236/- by invoking deeming provisions u/s 69C of the Act and the said addition was beyond the juri iction u/s 69C of the Act and bad in law.

11.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the Id. AO was not justified in assessing commission income of ₹4,695/- under the head 'Income from Other Sources' and in not allowing the benefit u/s 10(26) of the Act.

12.

For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the Id. AO was not justified in not granting credit for pre-paid tax by way of ITDS of ₹235/- and that too by way of a non-speaking order.

13.

For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in arbitrarily observing that the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and dismissed in limine, which is contrary to his own decision.

14.

For that the assessee craves leave of your honours to take additional ground or grounds of appeal and/or to modify or resign any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for AY 2019-20. Based on the information received from the "Insight Portal" indicating that the assessee had made cash withdrawals aggregating to ₹32,60,236/- from Bank of Baroda and had also received commission or brokerage of ₹4,695/-, proceedings u/s 148A of the Act were initiated. Since the assessee remained completely unresponsive to the show-cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 15.03.2023, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2023, after following the prescribed procedure. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee consistently failed to comply with the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) and 144 of the Act. Consequently, the Ld. AO passed an ex-parte assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 15.02.2024, treating the cash withdrawals of ₹32,60,236/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act which was charged to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act and assessing the ITA No(s). 117/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 commission of ₹4,695/- as income from other sources, and thereby determined the assessed the total income at ₹32,64,931/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with an inordinate delay of approximately one year, seeking condonation on the grounds of lacking awareness regarding income tax proceedings and failing to obtain timely professional assistance. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not furnish any justifiable proofs to explain the delay, therefore, he consequently rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal in limine. On merits also, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that while the assessee claimed the cash withdrawals were utilized for house construction and that the income was exempt u/s 10(26) of the Act, the assessee had completely failed to file the return of income or provide any supporting documentary evidence to substantiate the source of funds or prove that the income originated from the prescribed exempted areas. Finding no infirmity in the assessment order, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions of ₹32,60,236/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and ₹4,695/- as income from other sources. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) 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 appeal 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.

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 the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside the assessment proceeding may be restored before the Ld. AO so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided as the assessee has raised several legal issues which can be verified by the Ld. AO and thereafter decided. 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 back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission she wants to make in support of her claim that the addition was not warranted 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 1st June, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 01.06.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Mashaphy Debbarma, Joyram Senapati Para, Birendra Nagar Sadar, West Tripura, Agartala, Tripura, 799045. 2. ITO, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Mantribari Road, Agartala, Tripura, 799001. 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 →