SHAMBHU DASGUPTA,DALKHOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIGANJ

PDF · subscribers
ITA 221/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)4 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 Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance at lower levels, decided to remit the case back to the Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to present details, with a caution to ensure full cooperation. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

For AY 2017-18, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 25,74,200 under Section 69A as unexplained cash credit in an assessment framed under Section 144, which the Ld. CIT(A) upheld by dismissing the appeal without a speaking order. The assessee's appeal to the Tribunal was filed with a 10-day delay due to health issues, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity to substantiate details before the AO regarding an unexplained cash credit, despite prior non-compliance before the AO and CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY

Hearing: 06/05/2025Pronounced: 13/05/2025

(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shambhu Dasgupta Vs Income Tax Officer, IT Office, SBI Building, Subhaspally, Dalkhola, Karnojhora, Raiganj, Karandighi, Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal-733201 PAN No. : CIWPD 4351 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Chandan Sanghai, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi dated 18.11.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, on perusal of the appeal record, I find that the appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 10 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal. In the said affidavit, the assessee has sworn that the assessee was suffering from some health issues from 04.01.2025 to 17.01.2025 and was under medical treatment during this period, which caused the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period. In support of the same, the assessee has also enclosed medical certificate. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any objection to condone the delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions made by the assessee in the affidavit supported with medical documents, I condone the delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer framed assessment order u/s.144 of the Act assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.32,08,560/- and made addition of Rs.25,74,200/- u/s.69A of the Act treating the same as unexplained cash credit on account of no documentary evidence furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. It was also the submission that in the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without passing a speaking order. It was also submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the Assessing Officer, so that the assessee could be able to provide the details before the Assessing Officer to substantiate his case for the year under consideration.

4.

In reply, Ld. CIT-DR supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO. It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of AO would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.

5.

I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee could not furnish the details as asked for by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Further on perusal of

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →