JAYANTA MUKHERJEE,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 47(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1433/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 October 2026AY 2020-20215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration. The reasoning was that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued under Section 142(1) and show cause notices during the assessment proceedings, and also failed to furnish documentary evidence to the CIT(A). However, before the Tribunal, the assessee filed numerous documents with a petition to admit them as additional evidence, which were considered essential for a just conclusion of the claim. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, felt that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO with these additional documents. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the AO to pass an order after affording an opportunity to the assessee to be heard and after considering the additional documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jayanta Mukherjee, filed an appeal against the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was filed with a delay of 79 days, which was condoned. The assessee had initially declared a total income of Rs. 8,12,020/-. Information received indicated bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 4,17,000/- from M/s N.B. Agency in FY 2019-20. Notices under Section 148A(B) and 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 were issued. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance of Rs. 43,49,098/- under Section 37 and an addition of Rs. 86,229/- under Section 69C. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed. The assessee then preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should admit additional evidence in the form of documents filed by the assessee before it, and if so, whether the appeal should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Assessee's Contention: The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee did not argue the merits of the case. Instead, they prayed for the appeal to be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. This was because the assessee could not file essential documents for their claim during the assessment proceedings, leading to the assessment being made in the absence of documentary evidence. The AR placed a bunch of documentary evidence before the Tribunal and prayed for its admission as additional evidence. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection to remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 37,Section 69C,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No 1433/KOL/2026 Assessment Year- 2020-21 Jayanta Mukherjee..........................................................................................Appellant V Road, Shanpur, Dasnagar, Howrah- 711105, West Bengal- 711105 [PAN No. AXTPM3216A]

Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,..............................,..……………....……….Respondent WARD 47(1), KOLKATA

Appearances by: Sutapa Roy Choudhury, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Bimal Chandra Das, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing: September 01, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: October 30 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.11.2025 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 147 of the Assessment Year 2020-21 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. At the very outset it appears form the report of the Registry that the appeal has been filed by the assessee after a delay of 79 days. The assessee has filed a petition to condone the delay.Going over the contents of the petition delay is hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee has filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 8,12,020/- As per information

ITA/1433/Kol/2026 that the assessee had made bogus purchase from the M/s N.B. Agency amounting to Rs. 417,00/- in the F.Y 2019-20. A notice u/s 148A(B) was issued and a notice u/s 148 of the Act also issued. The assessee was requested to furnish the reply with supporting evidence assessee in response to the same furnished reply the Ld. AO after considering the reply made a disallowance of Rs. 43,49,098/- u/s 37 and also made an addition of Rs. 86,229/- u/s 69C of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration as could not file the documents essential; for his claim, resulting in assessment has been done in absence of the documentary evidences. The Ld. AR placed a bunch of documentary evidences before us with a prayer to admit the additional evidence. The Ld. DR did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the AO. 5. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that during the assessment proceedings the assessee failed to comply the notice issued u/s 142(1) and show cause notice. Before us assessee has filed a lot of documents with a petition to permit the assessee to place those additional evidences which is essential to come just conclusion of the claim. The prayer of the AR is that the

ITA/1433/Kol/2026 appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the AO by affording an opportunity to hear the assessee and further permitting the assessee to place the additional evidences which is essential for the just decision of the case. On perusal of the order, we find that CIT (A) has held that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee has been asked to furnish documentary evidences but he failed. Considering the submission, on perusal of the order and the documents filed before us we are in this view that for the interest of justice assessee has to give an opportunity to place his case before the AO. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is remitting to the file of the AO with a direction to pass order after affording an opportunity to hear the assessee. The appeal be remitted back to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order after going over the documents and after hearing the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee be allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 30th October, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated: 30. 10.2026.

ITA/1433/Kol/2026

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH KUMAR KUMAR BHOI Date: 2026.11.02 BHOI 12:03:04 +05'30'

ITA/1433/Kol/2026

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →