AJAY KOTHARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 865/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 June 2025AY 2016-2017Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not gone into the merit of the case and, in the interest of substantive justice, remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The AO made an addition on account of unsecured loan and disallowed interest expenses. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who confirmed the AO's action. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly adjudicated the appeal without going into the merits of the case, and whether the reopening was bad in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Department represented by : Bonnie Debbarma, Addl. CIT, SR. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 30.06.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This appeal arises from order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 24.02.2025.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO made an addition on account of unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 60,00,116/- u/s 68 of the Act and disallowed interest expenses amounting to Rs. 1,26,424/- u/s 69C of the Act.

1.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where it is seen that several opportunities given for presenting the facts of the case and any other submissions before the Ld. CIT(A), were not availed

2.

Before us, the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the reopening through issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was bad in law and that due to a technical error complete set of documents could not be uploaded for the perusal of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A) and stated that he could have decided the appeal on merit on the basis of facts recorded in the order of Ld. AO.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and pointed out para 4 at page 3 of the impugned order to show that the opportunities given to the assessee were not availed of by him.

3.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the records before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not gone into the merit of the case and thus we feel that in the interest of substantive justice, this matter deserves to be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. To this extent, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the Ld. CIT(A) takes up the case for fresh adjudication on merits, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

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

Order pronounced on 30.06.2025

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →