SUMITRA DEVI BIHANI,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(2),, SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2588/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 January 2026AY 2017-2018Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits of the case. The interest of justice requires the appeal to be restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 84,74,102/- during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and if not, whether the case should be remanded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

order

: January 16 ,2026 ORDER

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26.10.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for the AY 2017-18.

2 After hearing the rival contentions, we find that the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s 144 by making an addition u/s 69A of Rs.84,74,102/- during demonetization period. In the appellate proceedings, the dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex parte order on account of non-appearance on behalf of the assessee on different dates. We find that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without discussing and deciding the issues on merits when the assessee failed to respond to the Sumitra Devi Bihani opportunities provided by the ld. CIT(A). Under the circumstances, in our view, the interest of justice would be well-served if the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merits after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 16th January, 2026.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →