SANDEEP AGARWAL,ALIPURDUAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 38/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 June 2025AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, upon hearing the submissions, noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to produce evidence. However, considering the submission of the Ld. A.R. and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was inclined to remit all four appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The direction was to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the primary decision was to grant a fresh opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sandeep Agarwal, filed appeals against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata, for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The appeals were heard together, with AY 2013-14 as the lead case. During a search and seizure operation under Section 132 against the Bajrang Lal Agarwal & Ors. Group, cash, jewellery, and documents were found from the assessee's premises. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 4,57,483/- under Section 69A and Rs. 4,98,993/- as undisclosed income to the assessee's returned income of Rs. 8,82,269/-, resulting in an assessed income of Rs. 23,86,140/-. The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance and failure to produce evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case before the Ld. CIT(A) for all four assessment years, given the dismissal of their appeals due to non-appearance and non-compliance. (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The Ld. A.R. argued that justice demands an opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the Ld. CIT(A) in all four appeals, as the previous dismissal occurred due to the assessee's inability to appear. The prayer was to provide an opportunity to place the case on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. D.R. supported the impugned order but did not object to remitting the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 69A,Section 288A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA �ी �द�प कुमार चौबे, �या�यक सद�य एवं �ी राकेश �म�, लेखा सट�य के सम� [Before Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member &Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member] I.T.(S.S).A. Nos. 37 to 40/Kol/2025 Assessment Years2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sandeep Agarwal Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata

(PAN: AGSPA 0709 J) ( अपीलाथ� ) Respondent / ��यथ� Appellant /

Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 24.06.2025 क� �त�थ Date of Pronouncement/ 30 .06.2025 आदेश उ�घोषणा क� �त�थ For the assessee / Shri Sujit Basu, A.R �नधा�रती क� ओर से Smt. Paramita Guha, AR For the revenue / राज�व Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CITDR क� ओर से

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] for AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. Since in

2 I.T.(S.S.)A. Nos. 37 to 40/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sandeep Agarwal all the appeals, issues are common, hence taken up together for disposal by taking IT(S.S)A No. 37/Kol/2025 for AY 2013-14 as a lead case.

2.

Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 8,82,269/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 10,000/- under Chapter VIA. A search and seizure u/s 132 was conducted against Bajrang Lal Agarwal & Ors. Group of cases. In the course of search and seizure cash and jewellery and various documents were found from the premises of the assessee, the assessee was asked to explain the ownership and source of cash and jewellery and other valuable documents found during the course of search. The assessee was asked to file reply. The submission made by the assessee has been perused from the impounded material from the business premises of the assessee, it is found that in the impounded materials, there are certain entries which has not been explained by the assessee. The AO after considering the submission of the assessee total income of the assessee has been computed as under:

Total income as per return dated 01.10.2019 Rs. 14,29,666/- Add: U/s 69A Rs. 4,57,483/- Add: Undisclosed income Rs. 4,98,993/- Assessed income Rs. 23,86,142/- Rounded off u/s 288A Rs. 23,86,140/- 3. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed when the assessee failed to produce any evidence and remained non-compliance.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the assessee has been given an opportunity to place his case before the Ld. CIT(A) as the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) when there was no response on behalf of the assessee. His prayer is that the interest of justice demands to provide an opportunity to the assessee to place his case in all the four appeals as all the four appeals have been

3 I.T.(S.S.)A. Nos. 37 to 40/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sandeep Agarwal dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) when the assessee could not be able to appear before the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

Contrary to that the Ld. D.R through supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

6.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order passed by the lower authorities and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of AO when the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to produce any evidence.

7.

Keeping in view the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), considering the submission made by the Ld. A.R and for the interest of justice, we are inclined to remit all the four appeals of the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th June , 2025

Sd/- Sd/-

(Rakesh Mishra /राकेश �म�) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 30th June, 2025 SM, Sr. PS

4 I.T.(S.S.)A. Nos. 37 to 40/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sandeep Agarwal

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Sandeep Agarwal, Laxmi Niwas, Link Road, Jaigaon, P.O. Jaigaon, Dist- Alipurduar-736182 2. Respondent – DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- 21, Kolkata 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →