RAJPAL GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 47(1),, KOLKATA

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 194 days. Hence the delay is condoned.

Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for the AY 2019-20 declaring taxable income at Rs.6,32,140/-. On the basis of inputs received from CGST authority, the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), Kolkata conducted an inquiry and it is found that Mr. Koleshwar Ravidas is one of those fake taxpayers who are indulging in issuance of fraudulent/fake GST invoices for passing irregular input tax credit to other business entities and for doing this, they availed and utilized input tax credit (ITC) against fake invoices issued by others. Inspite of affording adequate opportunities, the assessee did not furnish any information. In absence of any explanation offered by the assessee, the total amount of Rs.22,01,361/- was treated as bogus accommodation entry and treated as suppressed Rajpal Gupta income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The ld. Assessing Office considered the bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure and the same was brought to tax under section 69C of the Act and penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act were initiated separately. Finally ld. Assessing Officer determined the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs.28,33,501/-.

The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex- parte without going into the merit of the case as the assessee failed to produce the details to explain the purchases and did not furnish any evidence in support of his claim.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he purchased from proprietorship concerns M/s. Supreme Traders of Koleshwar Ravidas to the tune of Rs.69,48,543/- and the same was taken into account in his return of income for the AY 2019-20 and ld. CIT(Appeals) without going into merit of the case passed the ex-parte order dismissing the appeal. He pleaded to set aside the order passed by the revenue authorities.

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. Rajpal Gupta

I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. I find that the assessee failed to produce the details of requisite information as asked before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of his claim. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/10/2025. (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ)