PRASANNA KUMAR ROY HUF,NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, NEW DELHI

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA
Įी Ĥदȣप कुमार चौबे, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी राकेश ͧमĮ, लेखा सटèय के सम¢
[Before Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member &Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member]
I.T.A. No. 381/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2018-19

Prasanna Kumar Roy HUF

(PAN: AAOHP 0738 E)
Vs.
NFAC, Delhi
Appellant /

)
अपीलाथȸ
(

Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ

Date of Hearing / सुनवाई
कȧ Ǔतͬथ
25.06.2025
Date of Pronouncement/
आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ
03.07.2025
For the assessee /
Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से
None
For the revenue / राजèव
कȧ ओर से
Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT Sr.
DR

ORDER / आदेश

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 12.06.2024 for AY 2018-19. 2

I.T.A. No. 381/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2018-19
Prasanna Kumar Roy (HUF)

I.T.A. No. 381/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2018-19
Prasanna Kumar Roy (HUF)

I.T.A. No. 381/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2018-19
Prasanna Kumar Roy (HUF)

I.T.A. No. 381/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2018-19
Prasanna Kumar Roy (HUF)

On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncement that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned.
3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee.
4. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 70,19,480/-. Assessment u/s 143(3) completed by disallowing agricultural income of Rs. 83,75,257/- and agriculture related expenses at Rs. 5,38,856/- by treating the same as unexplained income amounting to Rs. 89,14,113/-
.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.
CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed when there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
5. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
6. Upon hearing the submission of the Ld. D.R, we have perused the order of lower authorities and find that there was non-compliance on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of AO when there was non- compliance on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. A.R in his Affidavit (as discussed above) has clearly stated that interest of justice would be served if the order dated 12.06.2024
set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Keeping in view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), considering the submission and for the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass afresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee to participate in the proceeding and place all documentary evidences..

I.T.A. No. 381/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2018-19
Prasanna Kumar Roy (HUF)

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 3rd July , 2025 (Rakesh Mishra /राकेश ͧमĮ) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /Ĥदȣप कुमार चौबे)
Accountant Member/लेखा सदèय Judicial Member/ÛयाǓयक सदèय

Dated: 3rd July, 2025

SM, Sr. PS

Copy of the order forwarded to: