ASHUTOSH BISWAS,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , BURDWAN

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed the return of income for AY 2017-18. As per the information available with the Department, the assessee had made large cash deposits and withdrawals during the year under consideration in his current bank account maintained with the Bank of Baroda and had also deposited cash of ₹16,46,600/- during the demonetization period. Since no income tax return had been filed, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee; in response to which the assessee filed his return of income showing total income of ₹3,12,880/- and subsequently furnished details regarding the deposits in his various bank accounts and also deposits during the demonetization period in response to the notices issued. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') observed that the assessee had been maintaining four bank accounts with the Bank of Baroda, out of which only one account bearing No. 09060500001738 had been declared in the return of income. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued but no compliance was received from the assessee. Further, a show cause notice along with the draft assessment order was issued to the assessee but the same were also not responded by the assessee. In view of non- compliance by the assessee, the Ld. AO added a sum of ₹1,98,83,600/- to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹2,01,96,480/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act was levied. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who did not condone the delay of 478 days and dismissed the appeal of the I.T.A. No.: 1070/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashutosh Biswas. assessee vide order dated 18.03.2025. Before the Ld. CIT(A), it was contended that the consultant of the assessee Chartered Accountant Sanjiban Das Gupta, who had filed the appeal for the assessment proceedings failed to guide him properly. The appellant was fully dependent on him regarding income tax matter and, therefore, the appeal could not be filed well within the stipulated time and there was a delay of 478 days. The Ld. CIT(A) did not find it to be a sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits of the case and the delay was not condoned.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A) there was delay of 478 days and the delay occurred on account of the Chartered Accountant, Sh. Sanjiban Das Gupta. The Ld. DR submitted that there were 4 bank accounts which were not disclosed. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) so that adequate opportunity of being heard can be provided to the assessee.

We have considered the submissions made. We are of the view that on the reasons given by the assessee the delay ought to have been condoned and the appeal should have been decided on merits in view of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and we remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) who shall allow the opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order on the grounds of appeal raised before him. I.T.A. No.: 1070/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashutosh Biswas.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st September, 2025. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 01.09.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 1070/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashutosh Biswas. Copy of the order forwarded to:

CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order