SEFALI COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA

ITA 863/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 September 2026AY 2017-20185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The assessment was initially made because the AO found that the assessee had not furnished complete documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of cash deposits. The assessee subsequently placed a list of documents before the ITAT. Considering these submissions and the orders of the lower authorities, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee ought to be given an opportunity to place its case before the AO. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was remitted back to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to hear the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sefali Commercial Private Limited, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 disclosing a total income of Rs. 15,97,890. The case was selected for scrutiny due to non-filing of a tax audit report and cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Despite notices, there was non-compliance, leading the Assessing Officer (AO) to assess the total income at Rs. 16,12,88,900, with an addition of Rs. 145,31,000 under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, was dismissed. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The NFAC's order, passed under Section 143(3), is the order under challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to place documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer, thereby remitting the appeal back to the AO's file? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and the opportunity to present evidence). Assessee's Contention: The learned Authorized Representative (AR) did not argue the merits of the case but prayed for the appeal to be remitted back to the AO with a direction to pass an order after giving the assessee an opportunity to submit documentary evidence. The AR placed several documentary evidences before the Tribunal, including an audit report for FY 2016-17, IT return acknowledgment, date-wise cash deposit details, cash collection and expense statements, party-wise debt collection details, a certificate from Allahabad Bank for cash deposits in old currency, month-wise cash deposit comparisons, bank statements, and WB VAT returns. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) supported the impugned order but did not raise any objection to remitting the appeal back to the AO's file.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.01.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 143(3) of the Assessment Year 2017-18 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee f

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →