KARISHMA TIE -UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-8(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 661/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after condoning the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a total income of ₹47,031. The Assessing Officer noted a cash deposit of ₹4,76,500 in the assessee's bank account, which could not be explained by the available cash in hand or interest income. Consequently, the AO added this amount as income from undisclosed sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without adjudicating on the merits of the case. Whether the cash deposit constituted income from undisclosed sources.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, AM Shri Anand Muskara, AR

For Appellant: Shri Anand Muskara, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amitava Sen, Addl. CIT DR
Hearing: 08.08.2024Pronounced: 13.08.2024
1.

The caption appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Addl./JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai dated 27th February, 2024, arising out of the Assessment order dated 24th December, 2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

2.

The brief facts of the case are that assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year in question by declaring total income at ₹47,031/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices were served under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act). In response to the notices, the assessee submitted reply along with copy of audit report,

3.

Aggrieved by the above order, assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT (A), where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by learned CIT (A) on the issue of delay in filing of the appeal on the part of the assessee without looking into the merits of the case.

5.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not object to such prayer made by the learned Authorized Representative before this Bench. We after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A) while deciding the appeal of the assessee without considering the merits of the case by simply dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed belatedly. It is therefore, necessary to remand back the issue to the file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to reconsider the issue challenged by the appellant / assessee before him after considering such condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before him and decide the appeal on merits of the case, the assessee is also directed to furnish such sufficient documents in order to substantiate its claim before the learned CIT (A) and also present on such date as and when such notice of hearing will be

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.08.2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →