JALPAIGURI ZILLA REGULATED MARKETING COMMITTEE,JALPAIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER / ASSESSING OFFICER, JALPAIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2338/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 January 2026AY 2015-16Bench: 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) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the merits of the case. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after considering documentary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file income tax returns for the assessment year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 1,91,12,639/- to the total income as unexplained income based on huge cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without considering the merits of the case and the assessee's evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

order

: January 09, 2026 ORDER

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.09.2025 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 2015–16.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed his returns of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer got information that a huge cash deposits of Rs.1,91,12,639/- was made by the assessee in the bank account but not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer added Rs.1,91,12,639/- to the total income of the assessee treating the same as unexplained income.

4.

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 by Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Marketing Committee passing an ex parte order without giving the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

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 an ex parte order without going into the merits of the case. The Ld. AR therefore prayed for one fresh opportunity to be given to prove the case of the assessee before the lower authorities.

6.

The Ld. DR did not make any objection to the above proposal of the ld. AR.

7.

We have considered the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) passed an order ex parte without adjudicating the merits of the case. Under the circumstances and on the request of the assessee, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we remand the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the matter afresh after considering the documentary evidences/details and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings by producing supporting documents/details to substantiate the claim of the assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 9th January, 2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →