JAHAR DEB,AGARTALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 244/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with a direction to re-adjudicate the matter after considering the documentary evidence related to cash deposits and affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The quantum appeal (ITA No. 243/GTY/2025) was allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, the penalty appeal (ITA No. 244/GTY/2025) was also allowed, quashing the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal reasoned that the foundation for the penalty levy would no longer survive if the assessment order is restored. The AO was granted liberty to re-initiate penalty proceedings afresh if necessary. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jahar Deb, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeals challenged a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 22.09.2022. The assessee's counsel stated that the proceedings before the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte, though the assessee attended the CIT(A) proceedings. The CIT(A) had noted that the assessee failed to furnish evidence regarding cash deposited into a bank account. The assessee requested the appeals be restored to the AO for re-adjudication after submitting all evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after the assessee furnishes documentary evidence regarding cash deposits into the bank account, as per Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the proceedings were ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A). The assessee sought restoration of the appeals to the AO to present all evidence concerning cash deposits, praying for a fair hearing and re-adjudication on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `GAUHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

Before: SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 10.06.2025 for the AY 2015-16. The penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. AO vide order dated 22.09.2022.

2.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the case of the assessee is ex-parte before the ld. AO as well as before CIT (A) though the assessee attended the proceedings before CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT (A) noted that the evidences were not furnished by the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that in the interest of justice and fair play, these appeals may be

3.

The ld. DR on the other hand relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below.

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the assessment was framed ex-parte when the assessee did not furnish before the ld. AO the documentary evidences/ proofs in respect of cash deposited during the year in the bank account. Similarly, before the ld. CIT (A) the assessee did not furnish evidences finding of which has been recorded by the ld. CIT (A) in para 6.5.3 of the appellate order. Consequently, we restore the issue to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after taking into account the evidences and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard the assessee. The appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In case of penalty appeal of the assessee in , therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) would also stand quashed as the very foundation of levy of penalty in the case of the assessee would not more survive. Further, the ld. AO is at liberty to re-initiate the penalty proceeding afresh, if required.

Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →