TAPAN KUMAR NATH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2344/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Given the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices from the CIT(A) due to a change in counsel, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) which sustained disallowances of unexplained cash credit under Section 69A and bank deposits. The appeal to the Tribunal was delayed by 251 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee, and the validity of disallowances concerning unexplained cash credit under Section 69A and certain bank deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Hearing: 25.03.2025Pronounced: 25.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT Date of Hearing : 25.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : The captioned appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059768294(1) dated 16.01.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18.

2.

Smt. Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT appeared on behalf of the Respondent and Shri Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee.

3.

The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 251 days. A separate application for condonation of delay dated 12.02.2025 has been placed in Tapan Kumar Nath, AY: 2017-18 file. Considering the averments made in the said application, we find that there is plausible reason to condone the delay and the delay of filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

4.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the order ex parte.

2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.1,00,51,080/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash credit by wrongly invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act.

3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.1,31,500/- made by the AO on account of deposits in UCO Bank, Budge Budge Branch.

4. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal

or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”

5. The first issue raised by the assessee is non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee submitted that he has not received the notices as the notices were served on the counsel of the assessee, who is no more handling the assessee’s appeal. Under this circumstance, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in this appeal of the assessee are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →