INDU VIMAL JHA,SAMASTIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3 (3), SAMASTIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण पटना पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्चुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] श्री संजय शमाु, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.A. No.: 10/PAT/2024 Arising Out of I.T.A. No.: 578/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & I.T.A. No.: 578/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indu Vimal Jha….....................................................................Appellant [PAN: BBRPJ 8384 D] Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Samastipur..................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Narendra Kumar, Adv. Department represented by: Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : September 18th, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : September 20th, 2024 ORDER Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member: Through the Stay Petition No. 10/PAT/2024 arising out of ITA No. 578/PAT/2024 the appellant has prayed for stay of demand amounting to Rs. 2,10,78,543/- arising out of order u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') dated 24.03.2023 passed by the concerned Assessing

S.A. No.: 10/PAT/2024 I.T.A. No.: 578/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indu Vimal Jha. Officer. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR pleaded that the appellant was a person of meagre means and was in no position to pay even part of the said demand. The ld. AR also took us through the orders of authorities below to canvas that during the course of assessment proceedings and the proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'], the appellant could not present the full gamut of facts and hence, he suffered the impugned addition in spite of the fact that he was merely working as a Customer Service Point (outsourcing agent of bank for banking transactions) of the State Bank of India. Admittedly, this kind of activity involves using the assessee’s bank account for transactions of other persons. It has been averred that due to ignorance of law and being situated in a relatively remote location, appropriate compliance could not be made before either the ld. AO or the ld. CIT(A). It has been stated that the assessee is in no position to pay the demand and hence, there should be a stay on recovery till disposal of appeal or alternatively this matter can be decided through remanding back to the AO/CIT(A) so that the appellant gets a chance to present the facts and demonstrate that the transactions appearing in his bank account are on account of his profession as a Customer Service Point for State Bank of India and are not transactions pertaining to him as such. 1.1. In support of his arguments, the ld. AR pointed out that both the orders of the AO and the ld. CIT(A) were passed in an ex-parte manner and in the interest of justice the assessee may be allowed one chance to plead his case before the authorities below. 1.2. While it is clear that there is no possibility of granting any kind of stay on recovery of demand because the appellant would be required to make out a credible case of lack of resources or an inability to pay any or part of the demand. However, what is clear is that the authorities below have passed ex- parte orders and treated cash withdrawal of Rs. 1,33,76,237/- u/s 69C of the Act.

Page 2 of 4

S.A. No.: 10/PAT/2024 I.T.A. No.: 578/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indu Vimal Jha. 1.3. The ld. DR while supporting the orders of authorities below, was agreeable to the ld. AR’s proposal that in the interest of justice, this matter could be remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for affording an opportunity to the assessee to present his case. 2. We have considered the submissions made before us and also perused the orders of authorities below. It is clear that the appellant, for reasons stated during the course of oral arguments, could not avail of the opportunities provided to him for presenting his case before the ld. CIT(A) and hence, in the interest of substantive justice, this matter is decided out of turn and remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard. With this order, since the matter has been remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A), the Stay petition would be treated as dismissed for statistical purposes. Consequently, ITA No. 578/PAT/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes, having been remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 3. In the result, SA No. 10/PAT/2024 is dismissed and ITA No. 578/PAT/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th September, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Sanjay Awasthi] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 20.09.2024 Bidhan (P.S.)

Page 3 of 4

S.A. No.: 10/PAT/2024 I.T.A. No.: 578/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indu Vimal Jha. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Indu Vimal Jha, S/o. Sachchidanand Jha, Village- Dahiyar, Post- Ranna, Baheri, District- Samastipur, Bihar, 847105. 2. ITO, Ward-3(3), Samastipur. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Patna Bench, Patna.

//True copy // By order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

Page 4 of 4