INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAJPUR ROAD vs. TUSHAR KANTA ROUTRAY, JAJPUR
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2018-19. The assessee was allegedly non-cooperative before the AO and CIT(A), and substantial cash withdrawals from the current account were treated as unexplained income. The CIT(A) also estimated the income at 8%.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the AO or CIT(A). The method of treating bank deposits as turnover and estimating income was deemed impermissible. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in estimating the income without proper opportunity to the assessee, and whether the bank deposits were correctly treated as unexplained income.
Sections Cited
Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (implied by appeal to ITAT)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No. 153/CTK/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax officer Tushar kanta Routray O/o The Income Tax officer, S/o Sarat Kumar Routray Jajpur Ward, Dala, Near Town Dhanipur, markandapur, jajpur- Vs. Hall, Jajpur Road, Jajpur-755019 755007, Odisha, Odisha (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AIIPR0400K Assessee by : Shri Manas Ranjan Nayak, AR Revenue by : Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR Date of hearing: 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 22.07.2025
O R D E R PER PENCH:
This is the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, in appeal no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071677886(1) dated 30.12.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19.
Shri Manas Ranjan Nayak represented on behalf the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. senior DR that the assessee has been non- co-operative before the AO and before the ld. CIT (A). It was the submission that there were substantial cash withdrawals from the current account of the assessee. The AO had treated the said amount as the unexplained income of the assessee by treating the credits in the bank account as unexplained. It was a submission that before the ld. CIT (A) also the assessee did not appear. But however, the ld. CIT (A)
In reply, the learned AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the actual income of the assessee is only about 4 or 5 lakhs. It was fairly agreed that the assessee has not appeared before the ld. AO or ld. CIT (A). It was a prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of the AO and the assessee would cooperate in the set-aside proceedings.
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the assessee has not appeared before the AO or the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) has treated the deposits in the bank account as the turnover of the assessee and estimated the income. We are of the view that the same is not permissible. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and restore the issues to the file of the ld. AO for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Should the assessee not cooperate in the set-aside proceedings, liberty is granted to the AO to draw adverse inference.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 22.07.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
