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. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The assessee, a wholesale agricultural crop dealer, declared a total income and significant cash on hand. The Assessing Officer added a substantial portion of this cash to the assessee's total income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte without deciding on merits, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case.

Jhumpa Sinha, Nalhati 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: 2015-16 Jhumpa Sinha………...….……..............………………………..……Appellant Vill+P.O- Kurungram, P.S-Nalhati, Dist.-Birbhum. [PAN: CXKPS4706E] vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Suri…………….…..………………...………..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Sumit Ghosh, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Gautam Mondal, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 02, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : February 02, 2022 Hearing through Video Conferencing ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.06.2019 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 order of the Ld. A.O. is bad-in-law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 For under the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee is a whole seller of agricultural crops like wheat, potato etc. and filed income tax returns regularly. The assessee declaring total income of Rs.2,92,542/- and showing cash on hand in the balance sheet of Rs. 20,86,080/- for the year ended 31st March, 2015 which has come past agricultural savings income but while passing the order of assessment the Ld. A.O. did not consider and added Rs. 19,68,887/- (Rs.20,00,000/- - Rs. 1,17,193/-) to the total income of the assessee which is arbitrary, unjustified and not sustainable in law.

3. For under the facts and circumstances of the case that there is no limit for holding cash in hand. Cash in hand has kept by the assessee as a measure of contingency. There is no law which fixes any celling limit for cash in hand. Cash in hand of Rs. 20,86,080/- are business cash and kept it for use in the business but while passing the order of

JHUMPA SINHA,NALHATI vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), KOLKATA

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