RAGHIB ALI,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 44(2), KOLKATA

PDF

ITA 966/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 July 2025AY 2021-2022Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) where an exparte order was passed, dismissing the assessee's appeal. 1.2 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal challenging the impugned additions.1.3 Before us, the AR briefly took us through the facts of the case and stated that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax counsel, proper representation could not be made at the first appeal stage. 1.4 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The Assessing Officer (AO) made two additions against the assessee: an unexplained sundry creditor of Rs. 2,71,35,296/- under Section 41(1)(a) and Rs. 27,66,184/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee appealed these additions to the CIT(A), but the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal. The assessee's representative claimed a communication gap prevented proper representation at the CIT(A) stage.

Held

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, preventing a proper examination of facts. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was advised to be vigilant regarding notices from the CIT(A) for the hearing.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without examining the facts relating to additions under Sections 41(1)(a) and 68, warranting remand due to a communication gap.

Sections Cited

250, 41(1)(a), 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Raghib Ali, 30, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata – Kolkata - 700007 [PAN: AHTPA2818E] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer – 44(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place, Kolkata - 700001 ................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Devesh Poddar, 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

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 14.09.2023.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO made two additions on account of unexplained sundry creditor u/s 41(1)(a) of the Act (Rs. 2,71,35,296/-) and the second addition was made u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 27,66,184/-. The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A) where an exparte order was passed, dismissing the assessee’s appeal.

1.2 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal challenging the 1.3 Before us, the AR briefly took us through the facts of the case and stated that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax counsel, proper representation could not be made at the first appeal stage.

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

We have carefully considered the records before us and the averments of Ld. AR/DR. We find that the impugned order is an exparte one and hence it is clear that there was no chance that the Ld. CIT(A) could have examined the facts at his level. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee would be alert to notices given by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing in the case.