Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a brick manufacturer, had cash deposits in bank accounts treated as an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act during assessment. It was argued that this occurred due to the non-cooperation of the assessee's Authorized Representative (A.R.), leading to a request for re-adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal reiterated the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to substantiate their case. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was not a speaking order and a remand report requested by the CIT(A) had not been provided.
Key Issues
Whether an assessment order, which treated cash deposits as income under Section 68 due to alleged non-cooperation of the assessee's A.R., should be set aside for re-adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
68, 250, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
Present for: : Sh.Saikat Ghosal, AR & Sh. Sanjay Kr. Parida, AR Appellant by Respondent by : Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063466990(1) dated 27.03.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18
Sh. Saikat Ghosal, AR & Sh. Sanjay Kr. Parida, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
Ranajit Kumar Pramanik, AY: 2017-18 3. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is a brick manufacturer. He is an aged person. He had turnover of Rs.1,08,52,125/- and had a net profit of Rs.10,89,916/-. It was a submission that the assessee was assisted by an AR in regard to the representation before the Assessing Officer but on account of the non-cooperation of the Ld. AR of the assessee, the assessment was completed wherein the cash deposited by the assessee in his bank accounts came to be treated as an addition u/s. 68 of the Act. It was a submission that as the assessee was not properly represented before the Assessing Officer, the issues in the appeal in the interests of justice may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Ld. CIT, DR vehemently argued against the setting aside. It was a submission that the assessee has been granted multiple opportunities by the Assessing Officer.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case it clearly shows that the assessment order is not a very speaking order. It can be on account of the fact that the assessee has not cooperated in the assessment proceedings. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) also shows that remand report has been called for from the Assessing Officer, the same has not been provided. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) also shows that the issues in the appeal have already been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication and this is what the assessee is also pleading before us now. We consequently do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. Though at the point of time when the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal, he did not have the powers to set aside but he set aside. In the interests of justice, we are reiterating the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and setting aside to the file of the Assessing
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.