BISWAS MOHD SHER ALI,,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 42(1), MURSHIDABAD,, MURSHIDABAD

ITA 1600/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 October 2026AY 2020-20215 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution, and the assessment by the AO was also made ex parte. The Bench was of the view that even in a best judgment assessment, income should be computed to the best of judgment, and entire receipts cannot be taxed without allowing for incurred expenses. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded to him for granting the assessee one more opportunity. The assessee was directed to comply with hearing notices, avoid unnecessary adjournments, follow Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, and an opportunity of being heard was to be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. The grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Biswas Mohd Sher Ali, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata 'A' Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and added Rs. 2,59,25,690/- to the assessee's income as unexplained money under Section 69A, framing the assessment under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B. The assessee's business involved the retail of human hair, and the AO added entire bank deposits without allowing for purchase price or business expenses. The assessee claims notices were not properly served, leading to non-compliance. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,25,92,569/- made by the Ld. AO under Section 147/144/144B without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant? (Mixed law and fact) 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order under Section 250 without properly applying his mind to the facts that notices for hearing in assessment and appeal proceedings were not properly served to the appellant? (Mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that adequate opportunity was not provided and that the entire bank deposits were added without allowing for expenditure on human hair purchased from hawkers. The assessee requested one more opportunity to make a proper representation. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that it be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI 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 [Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the ‘Act’] for AY 2020-21 dated 26.02.2026. ITA No(s). 1600/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2020-21 Biswas Mohd Sher Ali.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before th

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →