SANJAY KUMAR SINGH,BHOJPUR vs. DC/AC,CIRCLE-1 , PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 46/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 April 2026AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to provide substantiating documents and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to disclose the purchase of a flat for Rs. 5,20,000 in his sale deed and did not respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A). The AO completed the assessment ex-parte under section 144/147 r.w.s 144B, and the CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO and the subsequent ex-parte order by the CIT(A) were justified, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 144,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PATNA

Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 30.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 46/PAT/2026 Assessment Year : 2014-15

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Vs. DC/AC, Circle-1, Vill- Bakhorapur, P.S., Patna Barahara, Bhojpur - 802301 [PAN: ACMPS5041D] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : None (Adjournment petition filed) Revenue by : Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT

Date of hearing : 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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), Patna-3 [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 19.09.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/10861086106753(1) on the following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA No. 46/PAT/2026 Sanjay Kumar Singh “1. Whether the observation made by assessing officer was valid who observed the return filed by the assessee as invalid return. 2. Whether appellant was under obligation to explain the reason of a statement recorder by the third person in his personal and secret diary. 3. Whether appellant was liable to mention the amount in sale deed to the tune of 5,20,000 which he never paid to the developer. 4. Whether AO was justified in passing order under section 144 whereas he has admitted in paragraph no. 3 assessee filed his reply dated 14.03.2022, 11.02.2022, 21.02.2022.” 2. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 60 days. In this regard, the assessee filed an affidavit for condoning the delay dated 21.01.2026. It has been stated that the reasons for delay in filing appeal with sufficient cause.

3.

On going through the above reasons/explanations, we noted that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the specified time. Therefore, in line of 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 as per the information relating to the assessee i.e. Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh. During the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act deducted on 06.03.2019 various documents impounded but loose papers of money receipts of M/s Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. at 301, Raj Krishna Apartment which were impounded. On perusal of the money receipts is in the name of Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh were found. A diary marked as RKA-

3 ITA No. 46/PAT/2026 Sanjay Kumar Singh 09 reveals that Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh had bought Flat No. 303 from LRCPL. It was also found that the case amounting to Rs. 5,20,000/- during FY 2013-14 were paid to purchase the flat which is not disclosed by the assessee in his sale deed. Accordingly, the AO had the reason to belief that the assessee had escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act after obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority was issued to the assessee and subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee did not file return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, the case of the assessee was completed u/s 144/147 r.w.s 144B of the Act and the income of the assessee at Rs. 45,03,850/-.

5.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices to the assessee on different dates but there was no response from the assessee side. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

6.

Aggrieved from the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

7.

None present on behalf of the assessee (adjournment petition was filed). The case was heard qua the Ld. DR.

4 ITA No. 46/PAT/2026 Sanjay Kumar Singh 8. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has purchased the property which is not disclosing the return of income fully and did not respond the notice issued by the AO as well as by the Ld. CIT(A) and he has also not filed return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act.

9.

Considering the facts of the case, we observed that the case of the assessee has been completed u/s 144/147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for non prosecution by the assessee and assessment has been completed by the AO assessed the income of Rs. 45,03,850/- before the Ld. CIT(A) is also exparte order. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and in the interests of justice, we are giving one more opportunity to the assessee to represent his case. Accordingly, we remitting this issue back to the file of AO for fresh consideration and decide the issue as per law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 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.

10.

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

5 ITA No. 46/PAT/2026 Sanjay Kumar Singh Order pronounced on 30.04.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 30.04.2026 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

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →