Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arises from an order passed by the CIT(A) affirming the AO's disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 80P and addition of Rs. 62,53,600/- under Section 68 for cash deposits. The assessee had not complied with notices from the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal found that due to non-compliance before the lower authorities, the full facts were not examined. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's appeal should be allowed after non-compliance before lower authorities, necessitating a remand to the AO for proper consideration of facts and documents.
Sections Cited
250, 80P, 68, 148, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Indane Bottling Plant Loading and Unloading, Labour Co-operative Society Ltd., C/o Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6th Floor, Kolkata - 700017 [PAN: AAAA19124Q] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur - 734101 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Vinod Kumar Jain, FCA Department represented by : Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 20.08.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order dated 24.02.2025.
1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO passed his order with a recording of fact that complete details of income of the assessee were not filed before him in spite of opportunities provided. Thereafter, the Ld. AO disallowed claim of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 80P of the Act and also added Rs.62,53,600/- 1.2 The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A) where he did not comply with the notices issued fixing the case for hearing. In fact, this specific fact is recorded in para 4 at page 4 of the impugned order. Due to this non-compliance, an adverse view has been taken at the first appeal stage.
1.3 Aggrieved with this action of Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal, that the incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice and without given proper opportunity the facts and circumstances of the case is bad in law.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by affirming the order of the Assessing Authority, NFAC addition of Rs.62,53,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act, is bad in law, hence be deleted.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by affirming the Act of the AO in denying deduction u/s.80P of the Act.
4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in affirming the imposition of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234F of Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.55,49,965 is bad in law, hence be deleted.
The assessee craves leave to add, alter, modify or file additional grounds during the course of hearing.”
Before us, the Ld. AR stated that while no return of income (ROI) was filed initially but the same was filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. AR mentioned that they had considerable documentation to prove the genuineness of their claim and given an opportunity they could very well establish their bonafides. In fact, the Ld. AR took us through a paper book where, apart from the documents filed before the authorities below, some new documents were also filed, without necessary application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules.
2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
Indane Bottling Plant Loading and Unloading Labour Cooperative Society Ltd.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and also gone through the records. It is seen that due to non-compliance or partial compliance before the authorities below the full gamut of facts have not been thrashed out before the authorities below and hence, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the same to the file of Ld. AO for considering the facts in the case. The Ld. AO is directed to consider the return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act and is also directed to consider the documents and evidences to be filed before him and only thereafter arrive at a true and correct estimation of income of the assessee.
In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 20.08.2025