PRADEEP KUMAR SARA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 9(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 950/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to file necessary evidence and documents, and the CIT(A) was asked to obtain a remand report from the AO if additional evidence was filed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was directed against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee failed to appear and also did not provide sufficient evidence to explain the source of a cash deposit of Rs. 11,35,000/- before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence and explain the source of cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Dr. Manish Borad

Pradeep Kumar Saraf …. Appellant (PAN: AJJPS2454G) Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax .… Respondent Circle-9(1), Kolkata. Appearances by: N o n e appeared for Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 15.07.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 25.07.2024 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2017-18 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the “Act”) by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short Ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 23.03.2024 arising out of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act by ACIT, Circle-9(1),Kolkata dated 18.11.2019.

2.

Neither any one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any adjournment petition so, I after hearing the Ld. DR dispose of the appeal ex parte.

Pradeep Kumar Saraf AY : 2017-18 3. At the time of hearing I find that the assessee failed to get sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in support of his contention to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.11,35,000/-. Hence, I consider it necessary to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and direct the assessee to file necessary evidence and documents in support of his submission. If the additional evidence are filed then Ld. CIT(A) is directed to obtain remand report from the Ld. AO. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 25th July, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →