Loading judgment…
Facts
This case involves an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the Income Tax Officer. The assessment year in question is 2017-18. The specific details of the dispute or the grounds for appeal are not provided in the text excerpt.
Held
The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the findings or decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain what the tribunal held or decided in this case.
Key Issues
The core issues likely relate to reopening of assessment under sections 147/148 and the validity of the assessment proceedings under section 143(3), although specific grounds are absent.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Khakan Show…………………..………………....…………………....Appellant C/o Dhanpat Show, Beltalapark, Balurghat, W.B 733103.. [PAN: GCIPS4313E] vs. ITO, Balurghat…………....…….……....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Chandan Sanghi, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Satyajit Mandal, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 02, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : February 02, 2026 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 15.09.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹2,97,040. The return was not verified. In the return, the assessee claimed income under section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, declaring total turnover of ₹50,11,500 and income of ₹4,01,700 being 8% of the said turnover. Since the return was not duly verified and the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 read with sections 147 and 144B of the Act, making certain additions.
Dissatisfied with the above order assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. At the time of hearing the contention of the learned AR appearing before the Bench is that although the return could not be verified, the assessee had actually shown total turnover of ₹2,59,17,605 with gross profit of ₹2,96,273 and net profit of ₹1,99,923. It was submitted that the lower authorities failed to properly consider these figures.
On the other hand, the learned DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that in the present case, although the return of income was filed by the assessee, the same was not verified. Consequently, the assessment was framed under section 144 read with section 147 and section 144B of the Act. Further, during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT(A), the assessee failed to substantiate its claim by filing any supporting documentary evidence. Even before the learned CIT(A), the assessee could not effectively press or establish its contentions. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the financial statements and other relevant records after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.