INDRAJIT GHOSH,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(3), CHINSURAH, HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 214/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy (Vice President)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT, acknowledging the assessee's affidavit explaining non-appearance and to uphold principles of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals). The CIT(A) is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal afresh without being influenced by the observations of the earlier order, thereby allowing the assessee's ground for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file his Income Tax Return for AY 2018-19. An assessment was reopened under Section 148 due to significant cash deposits and other transactions in his bank accounts. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the matter should be remitted back to ensure natural justice and a fresh hearing on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)

Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Indrajit Ghosh,……………………………..………Appellant 248, G.T. Road, P.O. Sheoraphuli, P.S. Serampore, Dist. Hooghly-712223, West Bengal [PAN:ADIPG1201C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-23(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101, West Bengal Appearances by: Shri Suman Majumder, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: May 06, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: July 22, 2025 O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 13.12.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2018-2019.

(A.Y. 2018-2019) Indrajit Ghosh 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who did not file his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the information available, the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs.77,12,050/- during FY 2017-18 relevant to AY 2018-19 in bank account with ICICI Bank and AXIS Bank and payment made to contractors to the tune of Rs.45,30,406/- and sale of motor vehicle of Rs.1,01,79,000/- during the FY 2017-18 relevant to AY 2018-19. The assessment for the AY 2018-19 was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 on 31.05.2022. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee failed to file his return of income. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 26.07.2023 for getting further details and the assessee responded on 11.02.2023 with his reply along with documents. On perusal of the bank account statement of ICICI Bank, it is seen that the assessee has a total credit of Rs.77,12,050/- during FY relevant to the assessment year 2018- 19. As per reply received from assessee, the assessee is engaged in the business of transport and enclosed purchase bills of trucks amounting to Rs.1,01,79,000/-. The assessee produced purchase tax invoice and bills copy during the FY 2017-18 relevant to AY 2018-19. During the year, the assessee deposited Rs.77,12,050/- in the ICICI Bank and payment made to contractors of Rs.45,30,406/- but the proof of the same was not submitted. The total cash credits in the name of assessee maintained with ICICI Bank accounts appear at Rs.2,11,74,784/-. As the assessee has not furnished its return of income for the AY 2018-19 in response to notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the ld. Assessing (A.Y. 2018-2019) Indrajit Ghosh Officer computed the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs.16,93,892/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), but the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

3.

The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

4.

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

5.

I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/07/2025.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →