RAJIB DUTTA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 62(4),, KOLKATA

ITA 2078/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 December 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 250(6),Section 251(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

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 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →