PRABHANJAN KUMAR,AURANGABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PATNA

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s S.D Hospital, Maharajganj Road, Aurangabad, a multi-speciality hospital run by a partnership firm, in which assessee is a partner. It was observed during the survey that the partnership firm had two working partners but no income was declared from the firm. Another concerned namely,

I.T.A. No.648/Pat/2024 Prabhanjan Kumar; AY: 2019-20 S.D Pharma was operating from the same premises but had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2019-20. Based on the survey findings, the case of the S.D Pharma were unaccounted receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- from ultrasound activities were found and unaccounted stock of Rs.8,00,000/- was detected. Moreover, unaccounted purchase of medicines amounting to Rs.37,00,000/- were also identified. Despite issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, assessee failed to comply and did not furnish any details. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, made the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- as income from other sources on account of unaccounted ultrasound receipt, Rs.37,00,000/- as unexplained investment in medicines and Rs.8,00,000/- as unexplained investment in stocks, thereby, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.58,05,645/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however due to non-representation and failure to properly present the case, the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to reframe the assessment after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. 4. Still aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR contended that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, and the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted relief instead of restoring the matter to the file of Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the authorities below and submitted that the matter was rightly restored to the Assessing Officer due to lack of proper representation by the assessee.

I.T.A. No.648/Pat/2024 Prabhanjan Kumar; AY: 2019-20 6. We have heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the material available on record, we observe that the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices during the assessment proceedings. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not properly represent the case furnishing supported documents. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), instead of deciding the matter on merit, restored the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting opportunity to the assessee. In our considered view, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is justified. The restoration of the matter ensures that the assessee gets a fair opportunity to present evidence and substantiate the claim. Either even before us, the assessee has not placed any supporting material or evidence to controvert the findings of the lower authorities. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We also do not consider it appropriate to adjudicate the issue on merit in absence of necessary facts and documents. In view of the above, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) setting aside the assessment to the file of Assessing Officer is upheld. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed.

Kolkata, the 20th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 20.04.2026. DP, PS

I.T.A. No.648/Pat/2024 Prabhanjan Kumar; AY: 2019-20 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

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