Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income, but the case was selected for limited scrutiny. Despite notices, the assessee remained non-compliant. The Assessing Officer observed substantial bank deposits exceeding declared sales and treated the difference as unexplained income under Section 69A.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and failure to respond to notices at both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) levels. However, considering the nature of the addition and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal granted one final opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether to grant a final opportunity to the assessee for fresh adjudication before the CIT(A) despite consistent non-compliance and non-representation.
Sections Cited
250, 143(2), 142(1), 69A, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganesh Mahato…...……………………..…………………....Appellant Vill. Durgapur, PO- Jaynagar, Majilpur, South 24 Parganas-743337. [PAN: BGPPM6996K] vs. ACIT, Circle-26(1), Kolkata ……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Ankit Jalan, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 23, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the NFAC [in short CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,76,470/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. Notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued but she assessee remained non-compliant. The Assessing Officer observed that total deposits in the assessee's bank accounts With Bank during the period April 2016 to March 2017 amounted to Rs.2,00,80,900, whereas the assessee had shown only Rs.90,20,200 as sales. The excess deposit of Rs.1,10,60,700 was treated as unexplained money under Section 69A and added to the income of the assessee.
Ganesh Mahato Assessment was completed under Section 144 determining total income at Rs.1,14,37,170.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld CIT(A), but again failed to respond to the notices or make any submission. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte, upholding the assessment order.
The assessee is in appeal before us and has contended that the orders were passed without proper representation, and an opportunity be given to present its case before the CIT(A).
The learned Departmental Representative strongly objected to the request, submitting that the assessee is a habitual defaulter who failed to avail multiple opportunities at both stages of proceedings.
We have heard both parties and perused the record. It is undisputed that the assessee failed to comply with statutory notices and no representation was made either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). However, considering the nature of addition and in the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to grant one final opportunity to the assessee. However, we also take note of the consistent non-cooperative conduct of the assessee, and accordingly, we direct that a cost of Rs.10,000 shall be imposed upon the assessee. The said cost shall be deposited in the government account immediately receipt of this order, failing which the appeal shall be treated as dismissed in limine. Subject to the above, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with all notices issued and assist in disposal of the appeal without seeking undue adjournments.
Ganesh Mahato 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with cost of Rs.10000 imposed on the assessee. Kolkata, the 23rd July, 2025.