Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, failed to file a return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18. During demonetization, substantial cash deposits were made. The Assessing Officer treated these as unexplained money under Section 69A and passed an order under Section 144 after the assessee failed to respond to notices.
Held
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, observing that the Assessing Officer should pass an order in light of the CIT(A)'s directions.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and remitting the matter for de novo assessment. Whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal, directing the AO to act on CIT(A)'s order, was appropriate.
Sections Cited
139(1), 139(4), 142(1), 69A, 144, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Pradip Kumar ChoubeyShri Rakesh Mishraand
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Partha Roy…………..………….…….………………….……….……….……Appellant 923/1, Ashok Nagar, Barasat, W.B-743232. [PAN: AWEPR4888F] vs. ITO, Ward-50(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Asim Dey, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : October 22, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : October 24, 2025 ORDER
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.11.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 either u/s 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee made substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and the assessee failed to give any response. The Assessing Officer thereafter completed the assessment proceedings by treating a sum of Rs.1,21,79,229/- as unexplained money u/s 69A by passing an order u/s 144 of the Act.
Partha Roy 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed for statistical purpose by remitting the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudicating observing that the Assessing Officer passed his order u/s 144 of the Act in which the assessee failed to furnish any explanation and submissions to substantiate the cash deposits.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee is before us. The ld. AR challenges the very impugned order thereby taking several grounds in memo of appeal but in the course of argument, he prayed that a direction may be given to the Assessing Officer to pass order in view of the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) as the Assessing Officer do not giving effect to the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
Contrary to that, the ld. DR submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal should be dismissed.
Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties, we have perused the impugned order and find that the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on statistical ground by giving direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh and de novo order in accordance with law. It is an admitted fact that the assessee being an individual did not file return of income for the assessment year in question and the assessee has made substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period and the assessee remained un-responded to the notices issued, as a result of which, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment proceedings u/s 144 of the Act by treating the entire credits/deposits appearing in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained money. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed written submission, however the assessee did not produce any details or “I thus restore all the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass a fresh and de novo order in accordance with law, by adjudicating on merits and compute the income afresh. All the grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.” 6.1 The only submission of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer is not giving effect to the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), hence his prayer is to give direction to the Assessing Officer to pass an order expeditiously. Keeping in view the direction passed by the ld. CIT(A), we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with this observation that the Assessing Officer shall pass an order in the light of the directions given by the ld. CIT(A) expeditiously.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per direction given above.