SILIGURI COLLEGE,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), SILIGURI

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” 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. 1885/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2015-16

Siliguri College

(PAN: AAGAS 9800 D)
Vs.
ITO, Ward- 1(3), Siliguri
Appellant /

)
अपीलाथȸ
(

Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ

Date of Hearing / सुनवाई
कȧ Ǔतͬथ
11.06.2025
Date of Pronouncement/
आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ
23.06.2025
For the assessee /
Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से
Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate
For the revenue / राजèव
कȧ ओर से
Shri Praveen Kishore, CITDR
Shri S. B Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R

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 17.01.2024 for AY 2015-16. 2

I.T.A. No. 1885/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Siliguri College

I.T.A. No. 1885/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Siliguri College

I.T.A. No. 1885/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Siliguri College

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. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee has made financial transaction amounting to Rs. 2,09,16,784/- during FY 2014-15 and it is evident that the assessee has deposited a cash of Rs. 1,73,19,996/- in the bank account and also earned interest income u/s 194A of the Act amounting to Rs. 35,96,878/-. However, the assessee did not file any return for AY 2015-16. Notices issued to the assessee but there was no response. Show cause notice has also been issued but there was no response, as a result of which, assessment was done on the basis of data available with the department and total income assessed at Rs. 2,09,16,784/-.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.
CIT(A) wherein also the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as the assessee did not file any explanation or evidences in support of grounds of appeal.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
5. The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that assessee has been given an opportunity to place his case before the CIT(A).He also filed an application that the assessee will cooperate in the proceedings if the appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of lower authorities as the order passed by the Ld.
CIT(A) only on account of non-response from the assessee. He has filed an Affidavit to this effect.
6. Contrary to that the Ld. D.R through supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
7. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order passed by the lower authorities and find that the assessment was done

I.T.A. No. 1885/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Siliguri College when there was no response and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee when the assessee failed to prove any explanation or evidence to support the grounds of appeal. The assessee filed an Affidavit filed by the assessee which is as under:

I.T.A. No. 1885/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Siliguri College

I.T.A. No. 1885/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Siliguri College

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 23rd June , 2025 (Rakesh Mishra /राकेश ͧमĮ) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /Ĥदȣप कुमार चौबे)
Accountant Member/लेखा सदèय Judicial Member/ÛयाǓयक सदèय

Dated: 23rd June, 2025

SM, Sr. PS

Copy of the order forwarded to: