INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), SITAMARHI, SITAMARHI vs. DHRUV KUMAR JHA, SITAMARHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 438/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 May 2026AY 2018-198 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence and remanded it to the AO for a report, but the AO did not submit the report within the given short timeframe. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The Revenue's appeal was filed with a significant delay, which was condoned. The case involved reopening of assessment due to alleged cash withdrawals from a bank account. The assessee claimed the account was jointly held with his wife who runs a CSP center, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without giving the AO sufficient opportunity to rebut additional evidence, and whether the additional evidence was properly admitted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) Before Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.438/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.O. Ward-2(5)……………………………….………………………….Appellant Sitamarhi, Narayan niwas, NH-77, Vishwanathpur, Dumra, Sitamarhi- 843301 [PAN No.BOJPJ0313P] Vs. Dhruv kumar Jha,……………………..…………….………... Respondent, Ward no. 08, Village- Hansaur, Po- Tariyani Chapra, Ps-Belsand, District- Sitamarhi, Sitamarhi- 843316 Appearances by: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri, Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT,appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 30, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order :May 20 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.03.2023 of the Income Tax Department passed under Section 147r.w.s 144B of the Assessment Year 2018-19 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. At the very outset, it appears from the report of the Registry that the appeal filed by the Revenue after a delay of 116 days. The Revenue has filed a petition to condone the delay and the gist of the petition as below: -

a. That the case records, including the assessment order, appellate order. and submission details, were thoroughly examined to determine

ITA No.438/Pat/2025 Assessment Year- 2018-19 substantial questions of law. This process required collation of documents.

b. That the entire process, though carried out continuously and expeditiously consumed time due to the administrative channels involved and the complexity of the case, leading to the aforementioned delay.

c. The proposal for filing appeal was processed and forwarded through proper channel, which involved multiple levels of scrutiny and administrative approvals.

d. The matter required examination at different stages, including legal vetting and obtaining sanction from the higher authorities, which consumed considerable time.

The Ld. DR submits that the delay was purely on account of procedural requirements and not due to negligence or in action on the part of the department. The Ld. AR did not oppose the petition to condone the delay. Going over the contents of the petition and the grounds mentioned we find the reason given in the petition are bona fide and genuine one. Accordingly, we condoned the delay.

2.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the case of the assessee has been reopened U/s. 148 after following due process of law as envisaged under section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order u/s. 148A(d) dated 29.3.2022 states the following that the specific information regarding that the assessee has made the withdrawal (including through bearer's cheque) of cash to the tune of Rs. 1,48,97,582/- (Aggregate gross amount received from persons in cash) from the bank account number 11456622499 of State Bank of India. On perusal of the information received, it is observed that, despite being a non-filer of return, the assessee has total income of Rs. 2

ITA No.438/Pat/2025 Assessment Year- 2018-19 14897582/-failed to offer tax for the same, is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the AY 2018-19. The assessee failed to reply to the notice issued during the course of 148A proceedings. After due deliberation, the conclusion in the order u/s. 148A(d) was that the above transactions of Rs. 14897582/-escaped assessment. Accordingly Notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued and duly served on the assessee. The AO noted that the assessee has made the withdrawal (including through bearer's cheque) of cash to the tune of Rs. 14897582/- (Aggregate gross amount received from persons in cash) from the bank account number 11456622499 of State Bank of India. On perusal of the information received, it is observed that, the assessee holds the current account with SBI Belsand Branch having account number 35076023929, (not account number 11456622499) and cash withdrawal from this account is Rs. 14897582/- and the cash deposit in the account is Rs. 37570/- despite being a non-filer of return, the assessee has total income of Rs. 14897582/- failed to offer tax for the same, is chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for the AY 2018-19. In response to notice under section 148 the assessee filed the return of income on 29.04.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 2,24,670/-. In the return of income the assessee has offered income under Presumptive tax scheme in ITR -4 from bank account number 32893438074 held with SBI Saving account at Belsand Branch. The total deposits in the account is to the tune of Rs. 3,28,698/- whereby the aggregate total income offered is Rs. 2,24,670/-. The assessee failed to file the bank statement of account number 35076023929. Instead only filed the bank statement of account of 32893438074. The assessee submitted that "I have a joint current account with my wife in Sitmarhi Belsand Branch having account number 35076023929 in the name of Mrs. Archna Devi and Mr. Dhruv Kumar Jha which has been opened for public cash transactions on behalf of SBI, of Belsand

ITA No.438/Pat/2025 Assessment Year- 2018-19 Sitamarhi Branch having BC code (1A790054) and the total cash transaction of Rs. 1,48,97,582/- has been done on behalf of State Bank Belsand Branch SBI, and a certificate from Branch Manager of SBI Belsand Branch has been duly attached for your confirmation." The AO states that at the outset NO CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK HAS BEEN SUBMITTED in order to be verified. The information available in the Insight portal is as follows.

Independent Enquiry u/s. 133(6) was issued to the SBI Bank Belsand Branch having Current account number 35076023929. On perusal of the details received from this bank it is seen that the total credits in this account is to the tune of Rs. 1,54,55,529/-(Most of the entries are received in the form of deposit transfer). The total debit in the account is Rs. 1,52,76,502/- out of which the Transfer, MCC Issue, POS, ATM Purchase, ATM Annual Fees Ac. Keeping fees, Debit charges for SMS all aggregated to Rs. 1,76,696/- the balance amount is cash withdrawal. The total credit in the account number 35076023929 is of Rs. 1,54,55,529/-, this is not explained. Merely stating that this account is a joint account holder with his wife Mrs. Archna Devi is insufficient. The assessee claimed that his wife is running aCSP center of SBI Belsand Branch is not supported with any documentary evidence. There is no evidence that his wife has filed the return of income and has offered this amount in her return of income. In the absence of the above, it is deemed that the money belonged to the assessee and hence the total credits in the account 35076023929 is of Rs. 1,54,55,529/- is unexplained as to the source of this deposits. The name and address from whom such Transfer/cash has been received alongwith their PAN details and return of income details have not been provided. Therefore the AO held that the source of the deposits by transfer in the above account to the tune of Rs. 1,54,55,529/- was deemed income as per the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax 4

ITA No.438/Pat/2025 Assessment Year- 2018-19 Act, 1916. In view of the above the total credits in the bank of Rs. 1,54,55,529/- was brought to tax under section 69A as the assessee has become the owner of the money held in the bank account.

Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been allowed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the Revenue has preferred appeal by taking following grounds:-

i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (NFAC) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,54,55,529/- made by the AO on account of U/S 69A of the IT ACT, 1961 without appreciating that impugned account is a joint account and without a categorical finding as to how much out of total deposit amount pertains to CSP. ii. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)(NFAC) has erred in accepting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the 1.T.Rules, 1962 without affording sufficient opportunity to the AO for rebuttal of the same. iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (NFAC) has erred in accepting the additional evidence, overlooking the fact that adequate opportunity was already granted to the assessee by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings and the Appellant failed to comply despite repeated opportunities provided to him. iv. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.

3.

Contrary to that Ld. AR supports the impugned order thereby submitting that there was no violation of rule 46(A) as the CIT(A) after 5

ITA No.438/Pat/2025 Assessment Year- 2018-19 admitting additional evidence called for a remand from the AO but the AO did not furnish the same. The Ld. AR submits that all evidences were uploaded through the NFACe- proceeding portal and CIT(A) has considered the documentary evidences and thereafter passed reasoned order that do not requires any interference.

4.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the case of the assessee was reopened U/s 148 and notice has been issued to the assessee to submit explanation but there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Officers. We further find that there was also no reply to the show cause notice issued, however, in response to the notice U/s 142(1) the assessee has replied that the cash deposits in the account no. 35076023929 which was jointly held by him and his wife and his wife is running a CST Centre of SBI Belsand and Branch. The Ld. AO in its order has held that there is no evidence for running such a business nor any certificate from the bank have been submitted before him. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A) we find that during the appeal proceedings the assessee furnished additional evidence- in the nature of certificate issued by SBI, Certificate issued by Sanjevni Vikash Foundation appointing the wife of the Assessee as BC, authority letter issued by Sanjeevni Vikash Foundation to the assessee wife to work as for SP. The CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence and called for a remand report by remanding the evidence to the AO, however, no report of the AO has been received to the CIT(A), as a result, CIT(A) has passed an order and addition of Rs. 154,55,529/- has been deleted. The contention of Revenue before us is that CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to AO to rebut the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). It is a fact that the evidence and the submission filed by the assessee were remanded to AO on 03.03.2025 6

ITA No.438/Pat/2025 Assessment Year- 2018-19 by giving direction to furnish a remand report by 17.03.2025 and order passed by the CIT(A) on 21.03.2025.The contention of the DR is that there was a very short period of time given by the CIT(A) to furnish remand report. His prayer is that without giving any opportunity to AO to rebut the evidences order passed by the CIT(A) is against the law.

5.

Keeping in view, the facts of the case as well as considering the submission made by both the parties, we are in this view that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the evidences filed by assessee and pass a fresh order. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the lower authorities.

Appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of the AO for proper verification of the evidences filed by the assessee and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 20th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:. 20 .05.2026. DC, PS

Copy of the order forwarded to: 7

ITA No.438/Pat/2025 Assessment Year- 2018-19 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

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

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →