KHUNDONGBAM GOJEN SINGH,IMPHAL vs. ITO WARD-2, IMPHAL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – GUWAHATI BENCH VIRTUAL BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 140, 141 & 142/GTY/2026 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Khundongbam Gojen Singh………………………….….………...Appellant 1, Heinou Khongembi Kwakeithel Imphal, Manipur-795001 [PAN: AXQPS6854F] vs. ITO, Ward-2, Imphal………..…..………………..……...…..…..Respondent Manipur-795001 Appearances by: Shri Ankit Garg, CA, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 12, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : May 18, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: These three appeals have been filed by the same assessee against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”)] all dated 11.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The details of the appeals are as under: - ITA No.140/GTY/2026 for the assessment year 2012-13; ITA No.141/GTY/2026 for the assessment year 2013-14 and ITA No.142/GTY/2026 for the assessment year 2014-15, all arising from the separate assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. Since issues involve in all three appeals are common and pertain to the same assessee, except variation in assessment orders, therefore, all

ITA Nos.140, 141 & 142/GTY/2026; AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Khundongbam Gojen Singh three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we take up the condonation petition filed by the assessee explaining the delay of 169 days in filing all three appeals. A separate petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed in each case. We, after considering the contents of the petition and the reasons stated therein, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for adjudication on merits. First take up ITA No. 140/GTY/2026 for the assessment year 2012-13, and our findings therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals as well. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13, declaring total income of Rs.9,44,149/- with total turnover is Rs.1,64,99,900/-. However, as per ITS data, bill receipts of Rs.3,29,99,800/- were reflected in the name of the assessee. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) and 144 of the Act were also issued. However, the assessee failed to respond to all notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144/147 of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee is at Rs.26,52,980/-, after making addition of Rs.17,15,835/- under the head of business income. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of delay in filing the same. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing before this Bench, the Ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee has failed to produce any power of attorney authorization to establish that he was duly authorized to represent the

ITA Nos.140, 141 & 142/GTY/2026; AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Khundongbam Gojen Singh assessee. Therefore, we do not record his appearance and proceeded to hear the matter with the assistance of the Ld. DR, who supported the order of the authorities below. 5. We, after hearing the submission of the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on record. We find that in the present case of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal mainly on account of delay in filing the appeal without examining the issues involved on merit. The contention of the assessee before the Tribunal is that the assessee is in possession of supporting documents and evidence to substantiate the claim before the authorities below. The assessee has taken this ground before this Bench. Considering the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the matter afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and furnish all relevant documents and evidence in support of the claim without any default. Since the issues involved in ITA No.141/GTY/26, ITA No.142/GTY/26 are identical and similar to the issue decided in the ITA No.140/GTY/26, our findings and directions rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals also. 6. Accordingly, all three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 18th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 18.05.2026. DP, PS

ITA Nos.140, 141 & 142/GTY/2026; AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Khundongbam Gojen Singh 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 Bench