TRINCAS AGENCIES COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,DADAR, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1610/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 July 2025AY 2015-16Bench: us, the Ld. Authorized Representative argued on the merits of the case and assailed the action of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in not granting the adjournment for preparing a reply even when the matter was old and records had to be collected from various places.2.1 The Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of authorities below.3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present facts and collect old records before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to file fresh evidence under Rule 46A.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1 crore under Section 69 for unexplained investments. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but due to non-representation despite four opportunities, the CIT(A) decided the matter ex-parte against the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in disposing of the appeal against the assessee without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby warranting a remand for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Trincas Agencies Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 5, 1st Floor, Sharda Sadan, Plot No. 7, Swami Gyanjivandas Marg, Dadar East - 400014 [PAN: AAACT9625M] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700069 ................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Binod Kumar Bindad, AR Department represented by : Arun Kumar Meena, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 21.07.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 06.06.2024.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investments made by the assessee.

1.2 Aggrieved with this action of Ld. AO, the assessee carried this matter Trincas Agencies Commerce Pvt. Ltd. in appeal where largely on account of non-representation, in spite of 4 opportunities given by the Ld. CIT(A), the matter was decided against the assessee.

1.3 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has approached the ITAT with as many as 4 grounds of appeal. It is seen that the very first ground itself is challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in disposing of the appeal against the assessee without affording him any proper opportunity of being heard.

2. Before us, the Ld. AR argued on the merits of the case and assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A) in not granting the adjournment for preparing a reply even when the matter was old and records had to be collected from various places.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

3.

We have carefully considered the arguments of Ld. AR and DR and have also gone through the records in the matter. We find that at the stage of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not make any presentation of facts. Thus, in the interests of substantive justice, we agree with the Ld. AR that the facts needed to be put together from old records and hence the assessee could not submit the evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) in time. Thus, we set aside the impugned order and remand this case back to the file of Ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We may mention that in case the assessee wants to file fresh evidence before the CIT(A) then he must move a petition under Rule 46A of the IT Rules and thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) would do well to call for a remand report.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →