Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act led to an assessment under Section 153A/143(3) for AY 2014-15, where the AO made additions resulting in a higher assessed income of ₹9,45,590. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, and the assessee subsequently appealed to the Tribunal against the CIT(A)'s order.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to make proper representation before the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with notices. To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the appeal back for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to provide both the assessee and the AO an opportunity of being heard, including considering Rule 46A.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming various additions without proper representation by the assessee, and if the assessee was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) as per legal provisions.
Sections Cited
250, 153A, 143(3), 14A, 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 12.11.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2016. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the Order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case.
That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts of the case by confirming the addition made by the Learned I.T.A. No.: 2681/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandra Kumar Sureka. Assessing Officer without providing any substantive or reliable evidence to support the same.
That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of ₹7,706/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer (AO) under the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of ₹19,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer (AO) by treating the drawings and day-to-day expenses as undisclosed income.
That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by confirming the disallowance of ₹29,928/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer (AO) in respect of maintenance and electrical expenses.
That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by confirming the disallowance of ₹41,759/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer (AO) in respect of vehicle depreciation.
That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.”
Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the resident and office premises of the Adhunik Group of cases. During the course of search books of account and incriminating documents were seized and unaccounted cash was also found during the search. Accordingly, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued and served in response to which the assessee filed the return of income showing total income of ₹8,47,200/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹9,45,590/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 12.11.2024 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 2681/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandra Kumar Sureka.
Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined.
We find that before the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal, proper representation was not made on behalf of the assessee as the notices issued were not complied with. Therefore, 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. CIT(A). We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, and thereby pass an order in accordance with law. 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 25th August, 2025. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 25.08.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 2681/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandra Kumar Sureka. Copy of the order forwarded to:
Chandra Kumar Sureka, 5A, Rajhans Apartment, 6, Hastings Park Road, Alipore, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700027. 2. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata.
CIT(A)-21, Kolkata.
CIT-
CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
Guard File. //// By order