Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual and employee of a railway bank, filed a return of income. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer noted credit card transactions of ₹42,74,636/-. Notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were not complied with, leading to an addition under Section 69A and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal noted that proper representation was not made at the assessment and appellate stages and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adequate adjudication. Following precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee and whether the matter should be remanded for de novo assessment.
Sections Cited
250, 143(2), 142(1), 69A, 143(3), 250(6), 251(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & 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 [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 22.05.2025. 1. 1. Though the Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 41 days, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the assessee was suffering from illness in support of which the medical certificates have been filed. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA No.: 2078/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajib Dutta Gupta.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by passing order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 22/05/2025 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.42,74,636/ made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the 1.T. Act, 1961 without giving your appellant the chance of being heard and thereby ignoring the principles of natural justice.
For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by passing order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 22/05/2025 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant with the wrong observation at page 3, para 4.1, "The appellant has though made a plea that the said accounts were used by his wife for Amway business; which might be true but no copy or document showing any agency business with Amway is furnished" which is not correct as the appellant was not afforded the chance of submission of documentary evidences in regard to agency business with Amway.
For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant depending on another wrong/baseless observation at page 3, para 4.2, "There is no explanation whatsoever about the credit entries in said bank accounts HDFC or ICICI Bank" while there is no bank account in ICICI bank either in the name of the appellant or in the name of appellant's wife.
For that the observations and contentions of the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal filed by your appellant on the grounds which are baseless and also not correct.
For that the appellant craves leave to adduce, modify and/or alter the grounds at or before hearing.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and employee of a railway bank and had e-filed his return of income showing total income of ₹7,27,350/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that as per the ITS data the assessee had made transactions through credit cards through HDFC Bank Ltd. and ICICI Bank Ltd. to the tune ITA No.: 2078/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajib Dutta Gupta. of ₹42,74,636/-. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee which were not complied with. Hence, the Ld. AO added the same u/s 69A of the Act to the total income of the assessee and made assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act at the total income of ₹50,01,986/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 22.05.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:
“4. 2. The statement bearing watermark of Bank of Baroda certainly shows credits and debits having narration of 'Amway' but that is not the bank statement of HDFC or ICICI the credits in which have been considered for addition. The appellant has apparently tried to mislead the appellate authority by producing statement bearing watermark of Bank of Baroda to explain and pass as transactions disputed in the assessment order. Considering such facts and circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the appellant has not approach the appellate authority with clean hands and clear conscience. There is no explanation whatsoever about the credit entries in said bank accounts HDFC or ICICI bank which were added to the returned income of the appellant. It is worthwhile to recall that no explanation was offered during the assessment proceedings also. In such facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to dismiss the ground no. 2 to 4 of the appeal.
Ground no. 1 and 5 of the appeal are general in nature and do not merit any specific adjudication, accordingly, such grounds of appeal are liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”
Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.
We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). ITA No.: 2078/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajib Dutta Gupta. We note that section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and a decision as well as the reason for arriving at such decision. We find that at both the stages of assessment order before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal, proper representation was not made on behalf of the assessee. We note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras), it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that the Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. It has also been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act. Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that one more opportunity of being heard may be provided to the assessee. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission he/she/it wants to make in support of the relief claimed and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.: 2078/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajib Dutta Gupta.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th December, 2025. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 29.12.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) ITA No.: 2078/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajib Dutta Gupta. Copy of the order forwarded to:
Rajib Dutta Gupta, 12, Club Road, Nalta, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700028. 2. I.T.O., Ward-62(4), Kolkata.
CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.
CIT-
CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
Guard File. //// By order