Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 9,49,916 based on an estimate from total impugned transactions amounting to Rs. 1,18,73,958/-, due to limited compliance from the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the AO's order without discussing the merits, citing non-compliance with notices.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss the merits of the case, relying solely on the assessee's non-compliance with notices. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made by the AO without discussing the merits of the case, solely based on the assessee's non-compliance with notices.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
Assessment Year 2016-17 Biswajit Talukdar, C/o B.N. Talukdar Basantahar Bolla, Balughat Dakshin Dinajpur – 733154, Balurghat, West Bengal [PAN: AHVPT6380Q] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 30.10.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 31.10.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) dated 09.01.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”].
1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO is seen to have passed an order after giving details of the very limited compliance by the assessee in response to notices issued by him. Thereafter, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 9,49,916/- after estimating this amount from total impugned transactions amounting to Rs. 1,18,73,958/-. Thereafter before the Ld. CIT(A) there is a detailed rendering at page 2 of his order that there was no fruitful compliance to 1.2 On the last date of hearing, none attended on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the help of Ld. DR. 1.3 Aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and u/s 250 are bad in law.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 949916 on estimate and the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same. 3.. For that any other grounds may kindly be allowed to be urge at the time of hearing.”
The Ld. DR took us through the impugned order and the order of Ld. AO and pointed out that very pin-pointed queries were raised by the Ld. AO to which the assessee gave very general replies. However, the Ld. DR fairly mentioned that there would be no objection in case this matter to was to be remanded back for fresh consideration.
We have carefully considered the submissions before us and the averments of Ld. DR. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has nowhere discussed the merit of the matter and has simply gone by the fact that the assessee has not complied to the notices issued from his office. Accordingly, in the interests of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to be alert and file the necessary documents before the Ld. CIT(A) so that appropriate appreciation of the facts can be done.
In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 31.10.2025