CHITTAPRIYO BOSE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 33(2), KOLKATA,, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be served by granting the assessee one more opportunity before the AO to present their case. The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the matter afresh. This decision was based on the reasoning that the assessee should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their arguments and evidence. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was remitted for a fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Chittapriyo Bose, is appealing an order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee's counsel stated that while some details and evidences were submitted to the lower authorities, complete compliance was not achieved. Consequently, the assessee requested that the issue be remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision after submitting all necessary documents. The Departmental Representative (DR) did not oppose this request.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits, considering the assessee's submission of incomplete details and evidence before the lower authorities. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that complete compliance could not be made before the lower authorities and therefore prayed that the issue be restored to the AO for a fresh decision after filing all details and evidences. Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not oppose the assessee's prayer for restoration.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
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(A)”] dated 05.02.2026 for the AY 2020-21. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed certain details/ evidences before both the lower authorities, however, complete compliance could not be made before both the authorities. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that the issue may kindly be restored to the file of the ld. AO so that the complete details/ Chittapriyo Bose; A.Y. 2020-21 evidences could be filed and issue could be decided
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.
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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
