VINOD BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2),, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the expenses added by the AO were not verified due to a lack of evidence from the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arises from an order confirming an addition of ₹ 6,38,200/- made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. The assessee argued that verification was not done by the AO as necessary documents were not produced during assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO's addition of expenses under Section 69C requires verification when necessary documents were not produced during the assessment proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,KOLKATA
Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Jayshree Bhandari, CA Department represented by : Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 18.12.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 23.12.2025 O R D E R The present appeal filed by the assessee arises from order dated 24.01.2025passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata - 27[hereafter “the Ld.CIT(A)].
At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted the issue raised by assessee is against the confirmation of addition of ₹ 6,38,200/- which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as added by the AO under Section 69C of the Act. The counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue is requires verification at the end of the Assessing Officer as the necessary documents could not be produced before the assessing officer during assessment proceedings and therefore the issue may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer.
After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material available on record. We find that the issue involved is qua expenses incurred by the assessee which were added by the AO u/s 69C of the Act. We observe that the expenses were not verified at the end of the AO during the assessment proceedings for the want of evidences from the assessee and therefore, requires verification at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 23.12.2025
More judgments on Section 69C
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mritunjay Singh, Kudra vs AO, SasaramITA 454/PAT/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Shantilal Mafaji Kachchhava, Banaskantha vs ITO WD 1 Palanpur, PalanpurITA 2256/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Madhusudhan Gade, Nizamabad vs ITO., Ward-1, NizamabadITA 379/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
