MILAN MALLICK,BAGDA vs. ITO, WARD 50(1), KOLKATA

The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal:

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual Bank Mitra since 2011 (Customer Service Point) with the Allahabad Bank and had filed the return showing total income of ₹2,00,992/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices were issued which were not complied with. Accordingly, a sum of ₹12,23,735/- being the cash deposits in the bank accounts maintained with the Allahabad Bank was and the assessment was made at the total income of rupees 14,24,727/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 28.03.2025 dismissed the appeal as despite issuing several notices for granting an opportunity of being heard, the assessee did not respond nor filed any explanation in support of the relief claimed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 1170/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Milan Mallick

Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined.

In the course of the appeal before us the Ld. AR file copy of bank statement and requested that the assessee had deposited the cash collected from the customers of the Allahabad Bank. These documents were neither filed before the Ld. AO nor before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore the Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO as the assessee has sufficient evidence for the cash deposited in the bank accounts but could not file explanation on account of lack of representation. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We find that at both the stages of assessment order before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal, proper representation was not made on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remitted to the Ld. AO while the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). After considering the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play that another opportunity needs to be provided to the assessee to represent his case properly before the Ld. AO as the assessee claims to have sufficient evidence in support of the relief claimed. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as of the Ld. AO and remit the matter to the Ld. AO to frame the assessment afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournment and shall be at liberty to file all evidence in possession for I.T.A. No.: 1170/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Milan Mallick the relief claimed. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th September, 2025. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 10.09.2025 I.T.A. No.: 1170/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Milan Mallick Copy of the order forwarded to: