SUMAN KUMAR SINGH,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), SIWAN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद�य एवं �ी संजय सरमा, �ाियक सद� के सम� Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A. No.01/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Suman Kumar Singh ………. Appellant (PAN: BAXPS5861D) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Siwan. ………… Respondent Appearances by: Shri Sanjeev Anwar, Advocate appeared for Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 08.07.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 26.07.2024 ORDER Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2013-14 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 04.11.2022 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 14r r.w.s. 147 of the Act by ITO, Ward- 2(4), Siwan dated 16.12.2019.

I.T.A. No. 01/Pat/2023 A Y: 2013-14, Suman Kr. Singh 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of the reopening proceedings on the ground that in the reasons recorded for reopening assessee has alleged to have deposited cash of Rs.16,40,140/- in the bank account maintained with Central Bank of India. However, the actual amount of cash deposited during the year is only Rs.2,03,500/-. It was further submitted that since the reopening has been carried out on wrong reasons, the proceeding deserves to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the matter may be restored to the AO to examine the facts and then to decide about the validity of reopening proceedings. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The assessee being individual has not filed any return of income in the impugned assessment year. There was an information received by the AO that cash of Rs.16,40,140/- has been deposited in the bank account of the assessee maintained with Central Bank of India, Mohmmadpur, Gopalganj. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued but the assessee neither objected to the issuance of notice nor filed any return in compliance thereof. Ld. AO had not option except to frame best judgment assessment and made the assessment of rs.16,40,140/-. Even before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee failed to furnish any detail to controvert the finding of the AO about the alleged cash deposit of Rs.16,40,140/-. 5. Now, before us, assessee filed written submission along with a copy of bank statement in the name of assessee held with Central Bank of India for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 stating that the cash of only Rs.2,03,500/- has been deposited whereas the allegation by the AO is cash deposit of Rs.16,40,140/-. Since the very basis of reopening of the assessment is about unexplained cash deposit and

Page 2 of 3

I.T.A. No. 01/Pat/2023 A Y: 2013-14, Suman Kr. Singh the amount as claimed in the show cause notice and the assessment order is different from the amount stated by the assessee with the support of the bank statement, we on due consideration of this fact, restore the matter to the Ld. AO to verify the correctness of the assessee’s claim and if it is found to be correct then the reopening proceedings carried out after four years from the end of relevant assessment year deserve to be quashed on the ground of reopening the assessment on the wrong reason to believe. Needless to mention here that assessee should be given sufficient opportunity of being heard and the assessee is also directed to be diligent and no adjournment to be taken without reasonable cause. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 26th July, 2024. Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] Sd/-( Dr. Manish Borad] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 26th July,2024 J.D. Sr. PS. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – Sri Suman Kumar Singh, Sidhawalia, Mahamadpur, Gopalganj, Bihar-841407 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-2(4), Siwan 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 4. Departmental Representative 5. Guard File. True copy By order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Page 3 of 3