KAUSHIK MONDAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 61(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1158/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 September 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee could not succeed as it was held that evidence was not produced to substantiate the impugned deposits as being out of gifts received.5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to avail opportunities to produce evidence. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment, granting an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not respond to queries from the AO, leading to additions to returned income, including Rs. 35,69,000 for bank deposits. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, stating insufficient evidence for gifts.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are justified, considering the assessee's failure to produce evidence and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Mangtinlen Haokip, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 27.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 01.09.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 21.03.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)].

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO issued notices for eliciting a response to queries from the assessee, but there was no response to the same. Thereafter, several additions were made to the returned income.

1.2 The assessee primarily challenged the addition of Rs. 35,69,000/-, made on account of deposits in bank, u/s 69A of the Act. However, before Kaushik Mondal the Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee could not succeed as it was held that evidence was not produced to substantiate the impugned deposits as being out of gifts received.

1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds:

“1. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) erred in confirming the addition of Rs4569000/-u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and such action of the Ld NFAC is arbitrary. unjustified, unwarranted and illegal.

2. For that the Ld NFAC erred in rejecting the explanation of the Appellant that the appellant had received gifts from her close family relatives and such action of the Ld NFAC is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal.

3.

For that the Ld NFAC erred in appreciating that the explanation of the appellant as having received the cash gift from close family members of the appellant supported by affidavits, after lapse of many years the explanation of the appellant could not have been rejected and such action of the Ld NFAC is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal.

4. For that the Ld NFAC erred in confirming addition of a sum of Rs 10 lacs u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 admittedly received as refundable loan from the employer of the appellant and such action of the Ld NFAC is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal.

5.

For that the Ld AO erred in making addition of Rs 45.69 lacs u/s 69A without giving any specific show cause u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and such action of the Ld AO is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal.

6.

For that the appellant having explained the source of cash from his close relatives and opening balance, the provisions of Section 69A could not have been applied for making the addition of Rs 35.69 lacs and such action of the Ld NFAC is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal.

7.

For that the appellant craves indulgence to add, amend, alter, modify the grounds on or before the hearing of this appeal.”

2.

On the last date of hearing and even on three earlier hearings, none attended on behalf of the assessee. In light of this fact, it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. 2.1 The Ld. DR stated that the explanation filed by the assessee was not adequate regarding the additions made. The Ld. DR pointed out that the assessee has not furnished good evidence to justify the impugned deposits.

Kaushik Mondal 3. We have carefully considered the documents before us and have heard the Ld. DR. We find that the assessee has not availed of opportunities given to him to produce evidence in justification of his claim. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment, after giving an opportunity of being heard.

4.

In result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 01.09.2025

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →