Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Rosnee Chandak,Sikkim vs Ito, Ward 3(1),, Gangtok on 19 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, KOLKATA
SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 2929/KOL/2025
Assessment Year : 2017-2018
Rosnee Chandak, Vs. ITO Ward 3(1),
C/o Hanuman Prasad Aayakar Bhawan, Near
Chandak Soreng, Bazar 33, White Memorial Hall,
Soreng, South Sikkim - 737121 East Sikkim, Gangtok
[PAN: BDNPC3036R]
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Khushi Kundu, AR
Revenue by : Madhumita Das, Sr. DR
Date of hearing : 10.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2026
ORDER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 25.04.2024, DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1064352840(1).
2. At the outset of hearing, I noted that there is a delay of 521 days in filing the appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed affidavit dated 2 ITA No. 2929/KOL/2025 Rosnee Chandak 20.11.2025 in which the reasons have been explained for delay in filing the appeal are as under:
"I, ROSNEE CHANDAK, daughter of Hanuman Prasad Chandak, residing at C/O Hanuman Prasad Chandak Soreng, Bazar 33, Soreng, South Sikkim 737121, Sikkim, holder of PAN: BDNPC3036R, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
"1. That I had engaged the services of Mr. Abhishek Bansal, Chartered Accountant, and Mr. Kaushal Mittal since the year 2019 for handling all income- tax related compliances, including filing of returns, assessments, and appeals.
2. That my e-filing account on the Income Tax Portal was operated exclusively by Mr. Bansal and his team, using their email ID which had been linked to my PAN. All official communications from the Income Tax Department were thus routed through their system, to which I had no independent access.
3. That from around the year 2022, Mr. Bansal became completely untraceable. I later came to know that he had absconded due to his involvement in multiple financial frauds and was arrested in 2024 in NOTAN connection with serious criminal charges including forgery, impersonation, and money laundering.
4. That during Mr. Bansal's disappearance, Mr. Kaushal Mittal his known associate continued to interact with me and repeatedly assured FINDMA that my income-tax matters were being properly handled. Trusting him. and in the absence of any contrary information, I remained under the honest belief that all appeals and proceedings were in order.
5. That even the audit for the subsequent financial year had been done through Mr. Bansal's office, which further reinforced my belief that tax matters were under control.
6. That only in November, 2025, I received a phone call from an unidentified person claiming to be from the Income Tax Department, alerting me about substantial tax demands against my name. Shocked and unaware of any such developments, I immediately sought legal advice.
7. That I then approached Advocate Mr. Pradip Lakhotia, based in Siliguri, and upon checking the Income Tax portal on 10.11.2025, it was discovered for the first time that an appellate order had been passed on 25.04.2025. I had never received any communication about this, since all such updates went to Mr. Bansal's email ID which remained beyond my access.
8. That during the relevant time, I was also suffering from health complications which limited my ability to personally oversee or verify the status of my legal and financial matters. A medical certificate issued by Dr. S. R. Thakur (Reg. No. 36377, WBMC) substantiating my condition is annexed hereto.
9. That the delay in filing my appeal against the said appellate order is solely attributable to (i) the fraud and deceit by my former tax representatives, and (ii) my deteriorated health condition.
10. That I am also annexing the following documents in support of this affidavit: 3 ITA No. 2929/KOL/2025
Rosnee Chandak Annexure A: Medical certificate issued by Dr. S. R. Thakur, Annexure B: Copy of FIR dated 16.12.2022 registered at Matigara Police Station against Mr. Abhishek Bansal under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 120B IPC;
Annexure C: Press reports relating to a 245 crore financial fraud involving Mr. Bansal, use of fake firms, mule accounts, and cryptocurrency routes.
12. That I respectfully submit that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but arose from reasons beyond my control. I, therefore, pray for condonation of delay in filing my appeal under Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
13. That this affidavit is made in good faith and in the interest of justice.
3. On going through the affidavit, the reasons stated and delay supported by documents therefore, I condoned the delay that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing appeal within the specified time. Therefore, relying on the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji, (1987) 167 ITR 171 (SC), we condone the delay and the appeal is taking for adjudication.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the case has been selected for scrutiny under Operation Clean Money (OCM) for AY 2017-
18. The assessee had deposited substantial cash in his bank account during the demonetisation period as per information the following cash was deposited during demonetisation period.
SI Name of Account No. Account Type Cash deposited
No. Bank during
demonetisation
period
1. Axis Bank, 911020050286882 Current Rs. 9,21,850/-
Namchi
4
ITA No. 2929/KOL/2025
Rosnee Chandak
2 Axis Bank, 911020060495898 Current Rs. 8,72,420/-
Namchi
Tota Cash deposit Rs. 17,94,270/-
5. During the course of assessment proceedings, various
opportunities were granted to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. The assessee stated that the income of the assessee is exempt u/s 10(26AAA) of the Act. It was further observed that the aforesaid bank account there was total cash deposit during the year is Rs. 1,67,13,327/- which were also remained unexplained and the assessee had not maintained any books of accounts. It was also observed that the assessee himself has accepted that he has deposited cash in SBNs of Rs. 5,56,000/- and total turnover is declared in the VAT return to the tune of Rs. 2,75,26,278/- but not maintained any books of accounts. The proposal was sent to the assessee for completing the assessment u/s 144 of the Act but there was no response from the assessee side. Accordingly, the case was assessed u/s 144 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 27,58,102/- and penalty was initiated u/s 271AAC, 271A, 271F and 271B of the Act.
6. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Thee Ld. CIT(A) provided various opportunities to the assessee but he failed to submit any cogent documents in support of grounds of appeal. Accordingly, upheld the order of AO.
7. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the earlier counsel was involved in malafide activities against which FIR has been registered as per paper 5 ITA No. 2929/KOL/2025 Rosnee Chandak book, page no. 59 and he did not represent the case during the course of first appellate proceedings, he requested and undertook that one more chance granted to the assessee to substantiate the case.
8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that various opportunities was granted to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee side. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the order of AO and the assessee is not maintained any books of accounts and did not produce any stock register, purchase bills stock details to substantiate the transaction is carried out therefore, the AO has rightly made the addition.
9. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record and orders of authorities below. I noted that the case was selected for under Operation Clean Money since the assessee has deposited cash during the demonetisation period and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not produce the documents to substantiate his turnover. Since the case involved regarding the cash deposit during demonetization period and to examine the cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The CBDT had issued various Instructions/Notifications which has also not been applied by the AO while completing the assessment, therefore, in relying on the judgment of coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Bhoopalam Marketing Services Vs. AO in ITA No. 375 & 564/Bang/2022, AY 2017- 18, dated 15.09.2022 in which it has been held as under: 6 ITA No. 2929/KOL/2025
Rosnee Chandak 7.1 We have carefully gone through the various standard operating procedures laid down by the central board of direct taxes issued from time to time in case of operation clean. The 1st of such instruction was issued on 21/02/2017 by instruction number 03/2017. The 2nd instruction was issued on 03/03/2017 instruction number 4/2017. The 3rd instruction was in the form of a circular dated 15/11/2017 in F.No. 225/363/2017-ITA.II and the last one dated 09/08/2019 in F.no.225/145/2019-ITA.II. These instructions gives a hint regarding what kind of investigation, enquiry, evidences that the assessing officer is required to take into consideration for the purpose of assessing such cases.
8. In 1 of such instructions dated 09/08/2019 speaks about the comparative analysis of cash deposits, cash sales, month wise cash sales and cash deposits. It also provides that whether in such cases the books of accounts have been rejected or not where substantial evidences of vide variation be found between these statistical analyses. Therefore, it is very important to note that whether the case of the assessee falls into statistical analysis, which suggests that there is a booking of sales, which is non- existent and thereby unaccounted money of the assessee in old currency notes (SBN) have been pumped into as unaccounted money. 8.1 The instruction dated 21/02/2017 that the assessing officer basic relevant information e.g. monthly sales summary, relevant stock register entries and bank statement to identify cases with preliminary suspicion of back dating of cash and is or fictitious sales. The instruction is also suggested some indicators for suspicion of back dating of cash else or fictitious sales where there is an abnormal jump in the cases during the period November to December 2016 as compared to earlier year. It also suggests that, abnormal jump in percentage of cash trails to on identifiable persons as compared to earlier histories will also give some indication for suspicion. Non-availability of stock or attempts to inflate stock by introducing fictitious purchases is also some indication for suspicion of fictitious sales. Transfer of deposit of cash to another account or entity, which is not in line with the earlier history. Therefore, it is important to examine whether the case of the assessee falls into any of the above parameters are not.
8.2 The assessee is directed to establish all relevant details to substantiate its claim in line with the above applicable instructions. We are aware of the fact that not every deposit during the demonetisation period would fall under category of unaccounted cash. However the burden is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the deposit in order to fall outside the scope of unaccounted cash. The Ld.AO shall verify all the details / evidences filed by the assessee based on the above direction and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee may be granted physical hearing in order to justify its claim.
10. Respectfully following the above judgment, I remit this issue back to the file of AO to decide the issue in the above terms for denovo consideration after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the 7 ITA No. 2929/KOL/2025 Rosnee Chandak assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with cogent documents in support of his claim and not seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.
11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 19.03.2026.
Sd/-
(Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Dated: 19.03.2026 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. Pr. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches