TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN,SODEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-50(5), KOLKATA

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual and Tapan Kumar Barman furnished e-return of income for Assessment Year 2017 return of income for Assessment Year 2017 return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 31/10/2017 declaring income of Rs. 11,09,710/ 31/10/2017 declaring income of Rs. 11,09,710/-. Case selected for . Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) & CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) & CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Though the notices were sent by e 142(1) of the Act. Though the notices were sent by e-mail and also via mail and also via speed-post on 23/12/2019, none appear post on 23/12/2019, none appeared. The ld. Assessing Officer . The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited Rs.53,11,5 observed that the assessee had deposited Rs.53,11,5 observed that the assessee had deposited Rs.53,11,500/- during demonetisation period. However, without giving any second etisation period. However, without giving any second etisation period. However, without giving any second opportunity, the ld. Assessing Officer framed the assessment on opportunity, the ld. Assessing Officer framed the assessment on opportunity, the ld. Assessing Officer framed the assessment on 27/12/2019 itself i.e., within four days of issuing the showcause 27/12/2019 itself i.e., within four days of issuing the showcause 27/12/2019 itself i.e., within four days of issuing the showcause letter and the total amount of cash deposit during demonetisation letter and the total amount of cash deposit during demonetisation letter and the total amount of cash deposit during demonetisation period at Rs.53,11,500/ at Rs.53,11,500/- added in the hands of the assessee in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money of the Act as unexplained money and assessed income at and assessed income at Rs.64,21,210/-. Dissatisfied with the order of the ld. Assessing . Dissatisfied with the order of the ld. Assessing . Dissatisfied with the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). There was a Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). There was a Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). There was a delay of 32 days in filing of the appeal but the same was condoned of 32 days in filing of the appeal but the same was condoned of 32 days in filing of the appeal but the same was condoned but thereafter, assessee failed to appear on the date of hearing but thereafter, assessee failed to appear on the date of hearing but thereafter, assessee failed to appear on the date of hearing fixed by the ld. CIT(A). Further, the ld. CIT(A) without dealing with the A). Further, the ld. CIT(A) without dealing with the A). Further, the ld. CIT(A) without dealing with the merits of the case followed the decision of the Co merits of the case followed the decision of the Co- -ordinate Bench Kolkata, Dated 08/07/2024 *SC SrPs Tapan Kumar Barman

""यथ" / The Respondent / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) )/ The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध ,आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड" फाई/Guard file.