ANIRUDH KOTHARI (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 50(1),, KOLKATA
Facts
The assessee, a HUF, filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 3.55 lacs. The Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs. 11.93 crore. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) passed the order without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.1586/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Anirudh Kothari (HUF)…...……..………………….……….……….……Appellant AD-30, Salt Lake, Kol-64. [PAN: AAJHA5400M] vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Madanappa Raghuveer, DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 19, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : January 28, 2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.05.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2022–23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF and return of income was filed for the assessment year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs.3.55 lacs. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining total income at Rs.11.93 crore by passing an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
ITA No.1586/Kol/2025 Anirudh Kothari (HUF) 4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR without going into the merits of the case submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR therefore prayed for one fresh opportunity to be given to produce relevant details/documents to prove his case. 5. The Ld. DR did not make any objection to the above proposal of the ld. AR. 6. We have considered the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee failed to produce relevant documentary evidences and during the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Under the circumstances and on the request of the assessee, in the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate the matter afresh after considering the documentary evidences/details which will be submitted by the assessee during the remand proceedings. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings by producing supporting documents/details to substantiate the claim of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 28th January, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28.01.2026. RS
ITA No.1586/Kol/2025 Anirudh Kothari (HUF)
Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),
//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches
