INCOME TAX OFFICER , GANGTOK vs. KRISHNA PRASAD, SILIGURI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in restoring the issue to the AO as the assessee was not given adequate time by the AO to provide evidence. The CIT(A) has the power to set aside issues to the AO for re-examination.
What were the facts?
The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which restored the issue to the AO for producing evidence. The assessee's cross-objection was also filed. The notices under Section 142(1) were issued late, and the assessment order was passed quickly, not giving the assessee adequate time to respond.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-examination due to inadequate time given to the assessee to furnish evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER Per George Mathan: of 2025 is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal Girish Kshanlal Sharma no.NFAC/2017-18/10042414 dated 07.04.2025 for assessment year 2018-19. C.O No.61 of 2025 is cross-objection filed by the assessee in respect of revenue’s appeal in .
Shri Palas Chattopadhay, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR- JCIT represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was the submission by the ld. Sr. DR that the ld. CIT(A) has restored the issue in the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for producing the evidences before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that this was not permissible in view of proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed.
In reply, the ld. AR submitted that the notices u/s 142(1) has been issued to the assessee only on 18.03.2021 and the assessee was asked to reply to the said notice by 20.03.2021. It was the submission that the assessment order has also been passed on 22.03.2021. It was the submission that the assessee has not been granted adequate time to respond to the notices and produce the evidences. It was the submission that consequently, the assessee produced evidences before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer and was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.
Girish Kshanlal Sharma 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue shows that the reasons raised in Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, this relates to the admission of additional evidence. It is very clear that the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment did not give the assessee adequate time to provide all the evidence before the Assessing Officer. This is the reason adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) and after receipt of the fresh evidences restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The ld. CIT(A) now has the power to set aside the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer. This being so, we find no error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which calls for interference. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee where he has asking that addition is required to be deleted stands also dismissed.
In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and cross-objection of the assessee stand dismissed.
Kolkata, the 1st September, 2025.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
