What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The assessee, a grocery wholesaler, appealed an assessment order where the AO added Rs. 12,10,038 as alleged undisclosed investment in stock. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-appearance without deciding on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex parte without deciding on merits, and whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity to present their case.

Raj Kumar Puglia, Sainthia vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” (Virtual Court Hearing), BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Kumar Puglia………...….……..............………………………..……Appellant Old Kandi Road, P.S+P.O- Sainthia,, Dist.-Birbhum. West Bengal-731234. [PAN: AKDPP5708P] vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Suri……..………….…..………………...………..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Sumit Ghosh, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 03, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : February 03, 2022 Hearing through Video Conferencing ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.06.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Burdwan [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the appellant is a whole-seller of grocery goods and carrying on business as a sole-proprietor thereof. That the appellant has maintained regular books of accounts such as cash book, ledger, stock inventory, vouchers, tax invoices etc.

That the appellant was taken a cash credit loan from SBI, Saintha Branch against hypothecation of stock and collateral securities, which was duly reflected in the books of accounts.

For that while passing the impugned order of assessment, the Ld. A.O./Circle-Suri was taken Rs.1210038/- as alleged undisclosed investment (stock) and added back to the total income which is arbitrary, bad-in-law and liable to be deleted.

For the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee's income is to be assessed by the ITO on the basis of material which is required to be considered for the purpose of assessment and ordinarily not on the basis of the statement which the assessee may have

RAJ KUMAR PUGLIA,SAINTHIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SURI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments