Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made additions totaling Rs. 61,98,810/-, including unexplained cash deposits, undisclosed contractual income, and interest income, under Section 147 read with Section 144 for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee contended that the cash was a transfer from a partnership account for firm expenses and challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice issued by the ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence without considering it on merits, citing a procedural lapse.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 46A by not considering the additional evidence on merits. The matter is restored to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the additional evidence and decide the appeal, including legal/jurisdictional grounds, on merits by way of a speaking order, potentially after obtaining a remand report from the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting additional evidence under Rule 46A without considering it on merits, and whether the notice issued under Section 148 by the ITO was valid given the provisions for faceless assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 250, 148, Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI
Swarup Palit ………. Appellant 64/4A/1C, Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee Road, Beliaghata, Kolkata-700015. (PAN: AWYPP5229L) Vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata ......... Respondent Appearances: Appellant represented by : Shri Ananda Sen, AR Respondent represented by : Shri S. B. Chakraborty, JCIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 06.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 06.02.2025 ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal
I.T.A. No.: 1465/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Swarup Palit Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. “CIT(A)'] dated 24.04.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.61,98,810/- made by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 read with section 144 of the Act.
The Assessing Officer in this case has made the addition of Rs.51,83,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit into the bank account of the assessee and that of Rs.4,73,655/- on account of undisclosed contractual income of the assessee and that of Rs.319/- on account of interest income.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is an ex parte assessment order. It has been further submitted that this was not a case of unexplained cash credit into the bank of the assessee. That the amount in question was actually transfer of money from partnership account in which the assessee was a partner, which was thereafter utilised for expenses incurred on behalf of the partnership firm. The assessee had produced the additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) to prove the source of the deposits and other income and submitted that no additions were warranted in this case. However, the Ld. CIT(A) simply rejected the additional evidence filed by the assessee holding that the assessee had not mentioned in Form 35 that it was filing additional evidence. The assessee in this appeal has also taken a legal ground that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the ITO, Ward- 44(2), Kolkata, whereas, as per the relevant provisions of the Act, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act could have been issued by faceless Income Tax Authority and not by the concerned Income Tax Officer, Ward-44(2), Kolkata.
Since in this case, the assessee has pleaded that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to exercise his jurisdiction Page 2 of 3
I.T.A. No.: 1465/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Swarup Palit vested in him under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and completely ignored the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, therefore, in our view, the interests of justice will be well served if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the additional evidences filed by the assessee and decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. We order accordingly. It is further directed that the Ld. CIT(A), if so required, may call upon a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of the explanations, submissions and additional evidence furnished by the assessee and thereafter to decide the appeal on merits by way of speaking order. Ld. CIT(A) will decide each of the grounds taken by the assessee including legal/jurisdictional grounds by way of a speaking order. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.