PAWAN KUMAR PODDAR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 374/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 April 2026AY 2021-224 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, granting one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate claims. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained cash deposits and Long Term Capital Gains due to unsatisfactory explanations and lack of supporting documents. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to provide evidence even at the appellate stage.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity to present evidence, and if a further opportunity should be granted despite previous non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, – RANCHI BENCH

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – RANCHI BENCH VIRTUAL BENCH AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member ITA No.374/RAN/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pawan Kumar Poddar……………………………………………...Appellant C.H Area, Road No.13 Sonari, Jamshedpur Jharkhand-831011 [PAN: ABJPP6962C] vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Jamshedpur…………………..……...…..…..Respondent Jharkhand-834001 Appearances by: Shri Nitin Kr. Pasari, AR, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 15, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 17, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.03.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.9,92,630/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS primarily to examine relating to cash deposit. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished certain details, however, the same were found to be unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer further observed assessee had Long Term Capital Gain arising from sale of immovable

ITA No.374/Ran/2025 Pawan Kumar Poddar property, however, no proper explanation of supporting documents were furnished, in response to specific queries raised by the Assessing Officer. In absence of satisfactory explanation, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit of Rs.31,47,000/- as unexplained cash and also made addition in respect of LTCG amounting to Rs.21,78,069/-. Accordingly, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.63,17,700/-.

3.

Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee has failed to furnish any supporting documents even at the appellate stage. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the orders of the lower authorities are bad in law, as the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity to substantiate the claim. He, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee in the interest of justice.

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities and stated that assessee failed to comply with the notices during the assessment proceedings even before the Ld. CIT(A) no supporting evidence was furnished. He, therefore, prayed that the conduct of the assessee shows lack of interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6.

We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that assessee failed to furnish necessary supporting documents, both during the assessment proceedings as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). The record further reveals

ITA No.374/Ran/2025 Pawan Kumar Poddar that appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) remain pending for a considerable period from 20.03.2024 to 06.03.2025, during which also the assessee did not effectively pursue the appeal. Such conduct clearly indicate that the delay in disposal of appeal was attributable to the assessee. However, considering the principles of natural justice and in order to provide a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. At the same time to ensure diligence on the part of assessee, we impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by assessee with the Income Tax Department, and proof of such payment shall be furnished before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh on merit of the case during the remand proceedings, provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by considering the evidences that may be filed by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and furnish all necessary documents to substantiate the claim.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Kolkata, the 17th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Ratnesh Nandan Sahay] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 17.04.2026. DP, PS

ITA No.374/Ran/2025 Pawan Kumar Poddar 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

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →