SHAMBHU NATH DESIGNER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(1) KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL, KOLKATA

PDF

ITA 2669/KOL/2024Status: HeardITAT Kolkata26 September 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee appealed against ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17, which upheld additions made by the Ld. AO under Section 68 and Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, respectively. The additions were made as the assessee failed to provide required evidences despite several opportunities before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). The assessee contended that they were not afforded reasonable opportunity to present their case.

Held

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was effectively denied the opportunity to submit evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

Whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case and evidence before the lower authorities regarding additions made under Section 68 and Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.

Sections Cited

250, 147, 144B, 144, 68, 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Hearing: 22.09.2025Pronounced: 26.09.2025

आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench:

Both the appeals were filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in brevity ‘the learned CIT (A)’], order passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity, ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 on dated 30/09/2024 for both the orders. The impugned orders were emanated from the orders of the Assessment unit, Income Tax Department (in brevity, ‘the learned AO’),

When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed. Considering the merits of the case, both the appeals are proceed to dispose off after hearing the ld. DR on ex-parte qua for the assessee.

We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR and considered 3. the material available on record. Both the appeals for A.Ys. 2015- 16 and 2016-17 were proceeded ex parte before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A). Despite several opportunities granted by the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to furnish the required evidences. Consequently, the ld. AO made additions of ₹2,35,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 and ₹1,59,05,939/- under section 69 of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). However, after providing reasonable opportunities, the ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte orders, thereby upholding the impugned assessment orders. In its appeal before the ITAT, the assessee has, inter alia, raised a ground (Ground No. 4) alleging that reasonable opportunity was not afforded by the Ld. CIT(A).

Since the assessee was effectively denied the opportunity to submit evidence before the revenue authorities in support of its case, we consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents and evidence before the ld. CIT(A), who shall consider the same in accordance with law and