INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PATNA, PATNA vs. RASHMI RATHI ENTERPRISES, PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 233/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 August 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue but remitted it back to the AO for verification. Therefore, the Tribunal also remitted the issue back to the AO for a decision as per law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to substantial cash deposits in its bank account, and the assessment was completed ex-parte as the assessee failed to respond. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify if the cash deposits were part of the disclosed turnover of a proprietary concern.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in remitting the issue to the AO for verification instead of deciding it, and whether the assessee's contention about the business takeover was valid without producing sufficient documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, AM & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JM

For Appellant: SHRI A.K. Rastogi, AR
For Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhusan Garg, DR
Hearing: 28.07.2026Pronounced: 03.08.2026

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM:

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 11.02.2026, ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085893494(1). The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

ITA No. 233/PAT/2026 Rashmi Rathi Enterprises; A.Y. 2015-16 “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NAFAC erred in accepting the assessee's contention and not considering the facts that during the assessment proceeding, the assessee failed to produce the relevant documents for verification. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in accepting the contention of the assessee that the LPG distributorship business was taken over by one of the partners, namely Smt. Aparna Sharma. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the leaned CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee Firm is still active and filing its return.” 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, since the assessee did not file its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and there is substantial cash deposit of ₹7,40,67,930/- in the bank account. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the ld. AO given various opportunities. However, there was no response from the assessee’s side, accordingly, the AO completed the assessment u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act, assessing the income at ₹7,40,67,930/-.

3.

Aggrieved from the above order the assessee filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The ld. CIT (A) after considering the statements of the facts of the case various opportunities were provided to the assessee on different dates and assessee filed submission on 28th August, 2024, after considering the entire submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT (A) observed as under:-

“In view of the evidences placed on record, and, in accordance with the powers vested with the undersigned u/s 250 of the Act, in the interest of verification and to avoid double taxation, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify from departmental records the return of income. audited financial statements and bank accounts of the proprietary concern of Smt. Aparna Sharma (PAN: AMJPS4306E) for A.Y. 2015-16 and to ensure that the 2 | P a g e

ITA No. 233/PAT/2026 Rashmi Rathi Enterprises; A.Y. 2015-16 impugned cash deposits form part of the disclosed turnover/business receipts therein. Upon such verification, if the contention of the appellant is found to be correct, the addition of Rs.7,40,67,930/- shall stand deleted. Needless to say, that if after such verification, the contention of the appellant is found to be incorrect, i.e. the cash deposit of Rs. 7,40,67,930/- is not disclosed in the reported turnover of Aparna Sharma, Prop. Of Rashmi Rathi Enterprises (PAN AMJPS4306E), no interference is made with the order of the AO. In light of the above, and with the above direction to the AO, these grounds are allowed for Statistical purposes.” 4. However, the Revenue against the above order filed appeal before the ITAT raising the above grounds.

5.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire materials available on record and order of lower authorities below, we noted that the ld. CIT (A) has not decided the issue in favour of the assessee and this issue has been remitted back to the file of the AO for verification in the above terms. Accordingly, we are also remitting this issue to the file of the AO in above terms as observed by the ld. CIT (A) in above terms and the AO is decided the issue as per law to avoid double taxation.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 03.08.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

3 | P a g e

ITA No. 233/PAT/2026 Rashmi Rathi Enterprises; A.Y. 2015-16

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →