TARAK NATH KAR,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

PDF

ITA 133/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: us, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee is a salaried employee of M/s ONGC Ltd., from which he retired and got substantial amounts as retirement benefit (Rs.57,01,012/-). It has been stated that the assessee had duly sent all the details to his tax consultant who apparently failed to file the return of income. It has been further stated that all amounts were received from the employer and even the investments were made from such receipts only. Also, due to non-filing of return of income, so4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, a retired ONGC employee, did not file an income tax return despite having taxable income. The Assessing Officer (AO) subsequently issued a notice under Section 148 and made several additions, including under Section 69 and Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's initial appeal to the CIT(A) was largely unsuccessful.

Held

The Tribunal noted the assessee's status as a retired ONGC employee and the verifiable nature of his retirement benefits. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to present all relevant facts and determine the correct income.

Key Issues

The key issues were the validity of additions made by the AO due to the assessee's non-filing of the return and non-compliance, and whether verifiable retirement benefits could explain the sources of income and investments.

Sections Cited

250, 148, 69, 69A, 10

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH”, KOLKATA

For Respondent: DR S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Kumar Jit Das, Adv. Department represented by : Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 24.07.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 27.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the admitted fact is that the assessee has not filed any return of income in spite of there being taxable income. Thereafter, the Ld.AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 and gave several opportunities to the assessee to present the facts of his case. It is recorded in para 8 at page 2 of the Ld. AO’s order that due to non-compliance by the assessee his income was assessed on the basis of information available 1.2 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. AO, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where he was largely unsuccessful in pleading his case.

1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

A. For that the learned assessing officer erred in law as well as in fact in disallowing the allowance to the extent exempt u/s 10 of the amount Rs. 10,73,567.12/- and determined gross salary to the tune of Rs. 52,89,753/-. B. For that the learned assessing officer erred in law as well as in fact in adding a cash deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in total income u/s 69A. C. For that the learned assessing officer wrongfully and whimsically added the investment of your appellant of the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- in total income u/s 69. D. For that your appellant craves leave to rely, refer and adduce or modify further ground/grounds at the time of hearing, if necessary.

2. Before us, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee is a salaried employee of M/s ONGC Ltd., from which he retired and got substantial amounts as retirement benefit (Rs. 57,01,012/-). It has been stated that the assessee had duly sent all the details to his tax consultant who apparently failed to file the return of income. It has been further stated that all amounts were received from the employer and even the investments were made from such receipts only. Also, due to non-filing of return of income, some statutory deductions could also not be claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AR prayed that this matter should be remanded to the file of Ld. AO so that the correct income of the assessee could be determined.