SH. MHESHWAR SINGH,VAISHALI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH” (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA)

Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member ShriSanjay Awasthi,Accountant Member I.T.A. No.201/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Mheshwar Singh Prop- Mahavir Khad Beej Bhandar, Kartahan, Jagdishpur, Ghataro, Vaishali - 844119 [PAN: DUIPS7539K] ....................…...……………..Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Vaishali, Bihar - 844102 …..........................…..…..... Respondent

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : September18, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : September20,2024

ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short „AY‟) 2017-18is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the „Act‟) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi,dated 08.11.2023 arising out of Assessment Order dated 26.12.2019, passed under Section144 of the Act. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

I.T.A. No.201/Pat/2024 Sh. Mheshwar Singh “1. That the learned "NFAC" has grossly erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an assessment under section 147/144 of the Act at an income of Rs. 15,35,000/-. 2. That the learned NFAC has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs. 11,75,000/- under section 69A on account of alleged unexplained money having regard to deposit of cash amounting to Rs. 15,35,000/- in Appellant's Bank Account and charging tax on the same under Section 115BEE of the Act, is based on misappreciation of facts and needs to be deleted, as such. 3.1 That the learned NFAC has failed to appreciate the fact that provisions of section 69A of the Act are not applicable in the impugned matter, as the third limb of Section 69A do not get fulfilled i.e. the assessee has offered due explanations along with sufficient evidences about the nature and source of the money deposited into the bank account as such the additions so sustained need to be deleted. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining additions in the hands of assessee, without giving any fair and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Thereby, violating the principles of natural justice. 5. That the learned "NFAC" has further erred in sustaining levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and section 271(1)(b) of the Act and also by sustaining levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, which is not leviable on the facts of the appellant. 6. That the NFAC has erred in law and facts in issuing the order under Section 144 in spite of the fact that the assessee had responded properly and completely the notice previously issued. NFAC has issued notice on 2nd Nov, 2023 fixing the due date to respond to the notice by 6th Nov, 2023. The notice was served on email as specified in the Profile on Income Tax Portal of the assessee. However, that email ID belongs to the consultant who informed the assessee about such notice after the due date. NFAC issued the order on 8th of November, 2023. However, in the notice issued on 2nd November,2023 no additional information was asked other than filed in response to the previous notice.” 3. The appeal came up for hearing on 18.09.2024. Despite several notices issued by the Registry regarding the pendency of this case, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the matter before the Bench.

I.T.A. No.201/Pat/2024 Sh. Mheshwar Singh representation, we find it necessary to proceed with the case and deliver a decision based on the available material. 5. The appeal has been filed by the assessee but there is a minor delay of two days in filing it within the prescribed time limit. In the interest of natural justice and fairness, we hereby condone the delay of two days and proceed to adjudicate the matter on its merits. 6. Upon perusal of the grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the primary grievance of the assessee is that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO are ex-parte orders and the assessee requested that the matter may be remand back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 7. We after considering the submissions made on behalf of the department and examined the material available on record, we find that the assessee has been a habitual defaulter in complying with the notices issued during the assessment proceedings and before the Ld. CIT(A), despite multiple opportunities, assessee did not appear before the authority below which lead to passing the ex-parte order against the assessee. 8. Even before this Tribunal, there has been no proper representation on behalf of the assessee. However, in the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the case. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed the issue afresh notice to the assessee providing him with final opportunity to present his case. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and ensure timely representation. In view of the above, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the matter is remand back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-

I.T.A. No.201/Pat/2024 Sh. Mheshwar Singh novoconsideration and adjudication. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 20th September, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Awasthi] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 20.09.2024. AK, PS

I.T.A. No.201/Pat/2024 Sh. Mheshwar Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1Sh. Mheshwar Singh, 2. Income Tax Officer,Ward -1(3), Vaishali 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches