DEBABRATA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunity to prove their transactions and provide details. The Assessing Officer was given liberty to draw adverse inference if the assessee did not cooperate.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order that confirmed additions made to their income on account of cash deposited during demonetization, for which evidence of source was not provided. The assessee claimed they did not receive sufficient time to consult with their representative after receiving the notice of hearing.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was granted adequate opportunity to present evidence regarding the source of cash deposits, and whether the case should be restored for readjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 01.11.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1070071211(1), for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Ritesh More, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Nicholas Murmu, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. The assessee has filed a document stating that the notice of hearing was received only on 01.05.2025 and he has not been granted sufficient time for necessary consultation with the authorized representative. A perusal of the Form 36 filed by the assessee shows that an email address has also been provided under the name of dkroy211@yahoo.com through which notice of hearing has also been sent. The appeal has been filed in December, 2024. The assessee has been submitting before all the authorities that he has not been granted adequate opportunities to provide all the details. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) also shows that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period on account of the fact that the assessee has not submitted evidence of the source of cash deposited in the shape of cash book, sales register, stock register, cash flow statement, bank book, bills and vouchers etc. A perusal of the assessment order shows that even though a show cause notice was issued to the assessee for intimating the nature of the additions, the assessee did not reply the same. This being so, in the interest of justice and so as to grant the assessee adequate opportunities to prove its transactions and provide the details, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being hard. Should the assessee not cooperate in the set aside proceedings, obviously the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to draw adverse inference.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 05/05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 05/05/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 1.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026