JAYDEEP KUNDU, LEGAL HEIR OF NARAYAN CHANDRA KUNDU ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(1), NADIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1641/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Shri George Mathan (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(Appeals) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, acknowledging the fresh evidence submitted. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, noting that while the submission of fresh evidence to the CIT(Appeals) violates Rule 46A, the CIT(Appeals)'s action of restoring the case to the AO was appropriate and in the right perspective.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerned the Assessing Officer's action of treating a property purchase as made by the assessee, which the assessee contended was made by his son. The assessee did not represent himself before the Assessing Officer but submitted fresh evidence to the CIT(Appeals).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) was correct in restoring the case to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after the assessee submitted fresh evidence directly to the CIT(Appeals), which constitutes a violation of Rule 46A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Per George Mathan, Judicial Member:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2016- 17/10253576 dated 28th May, 2025 for the assessment year 2017- 18. 1 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Jaydeep Kundu , Legal Heir of Narayan Chandra Kundu 2. Shri Sutosom Bhattacharyya, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandip Sarkar, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. A.R. that the issue in this appeal is against the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in treating the purchase made by the assessee. It was the submission that the very foundation has been made erroneous. At this point, it was the query of the ld. A.R. as to the order from which the appeal has been filed. It was submitted that the appeal is filed against the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. A.R. was further queried as to what the ld. CIT(Appeals) was done in his order, to which he submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has restored the issues to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re- adjudication. It was the submission of the ld. A.R. that the issue was liable to be adjudicated in so far as the assessee’s son had purchased the property.

4.

In reply, the ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that the assessee has not represented before the ld. Assessing Officer and has produced evidences before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) should restore the issue to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. The facts in the present case clearly show that the assessee has not represented before the ld. Assessing Officer. Before the ld.

1.

(A.Y. 2017-2018) Jaydeep Kundu , Legal Heir of Narayan Chandra Kundu CIT(Appeals), the assessee has produced substantial evidences. The consequence of the evidence being produced was that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has restored the issues to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for examination of the same and re-adjudication. Admittedly it is to be noticed that fresh evidences have been produced before the ld. CIT(Appeals). This is total violation of the provisions of Rule 46A. It is obviously for this reason and in the interest of the assessee’s case, that the issues have been restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer by the ld. CIT(Appeals). It is not, as if the ld. CIT(Appeals) has denied the assessee an opportunity. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has done what is right and in right perspective. This being so, the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) restoring the issues to the file of ld. Assessing Officer stands confirmed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/10/2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →