VIKASH KUMAR,CHHAPRA vs. ITO WARD- 2(2), CHHAPRA, CHHAPRA

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “i. For that the impugned order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as impugned assessment order Dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Income Tax Office, Ward-2(2), Chapra against the appellant is bad in law as well as on facts and same is fit to be set aside. ii. For that the Ld. C.I.T (A) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not given the sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to justify his case as such entire assessment order is liable to set aside. iii. For that the Ld. C.I.T (A) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not explored the options which are vested him, as such entire assessment order is liable to set aside. iv. For that the Ld. C.I.T (A) has failed to appreciate that the impugned assessment order is completely based on - merely suspicion and same cannot take, the place of a reasonable belief. v. For that the Ld. C.I.T has decided the appeal ex-parte without looking merit of the case and also failed to appreciate the facts that the Appellant was having the gross income a sum of Rs. 1,74,650/- only but he uphold the order of Ld. Assessing Officer whereby he had assessed the income of Rs. 3,89,38,340/-U/s 69 which is arising out of deposits in the settlement account of the CSP of the S.B.I operating by the Appellant. vi. For that both the impugned orders are bad in law as well as facts and fit to be quashed. vii. For that other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal with due permission from the Hon'ble Tribunal.”

1 The assessee has filed additional evidence and has submitted as under the question for admitting the same:

1

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who did not file his return of income for AY 2018-19, and information was ITA No(s). 581/PAT/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2018-19 available with the Department that the assessee had made high-value transactions during the year, including cash deposits of ₹13,690/-, cash withdrawals of ₹3,87,68,214/-, and payments to Vedavaag Systems Ltd. amounting to ₹1,56,431/-. Consequently, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2022, in response to which the assessee filed the return of income on 27.06.2022 admitting the total income of ₹1,76,450/-. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, along with show cause notices were issued but the assessee remained non-responsive and failed to explain the source of the transactions. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.03.2023, by making an addition of ₹3,87,68,214/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money and an addition of ₹1,56,431/- u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure, and assessed the total income at ₹3,89,38,340/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but there was a delay in filing the appeal, which the assessee claimed was due to severe illness, but as the appeal in Form 35 was not accompanied by any cogent or tenable evidence and despite an opportunity given to file evidence substantiating the reasons for seeking condonation of the delay, the assessee failed to place the claimed medical certificate on record, rendering the explanation a mere bald assertion in the opinion of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and held the appeal to be non-maintainable per se. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined.

At the outset, the Ld. AR admitted that the assessment order is ex parte and the appeal was dismissed on account of delay, though the assessee had justified the delay. It was requested to admit the additional evidence filed as there are certain additional facts in Para Nos. 2 to 16 of the statement of facts appended with the memo of appeal which were requested to be considered while adjudicating the issue involved in the appeal. It was stated that the assessee is a CSP agent and had received only commission which was disclosed in the return filed. The assessee further states that he was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis during the period 02/01/2025 to 30/11/2025 and was under treatment of Dr Vinay Prasad, Bhagwan Bazar, Chhapra and after recovering from illness he collected all the relevant documents from the office of the previous counsel and handed over the same to the new counsel on 15/12/2025 and thereafter e-filed the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 275 days. The copy of medical certificate could not be submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee had requested for condonation of delay on account of medical illness but the same was not allowed. It was stated that the assessee had shifted to Delhi and the certificate of illness from the doctor was misplaced during shifting and therefore, the same could not be filed before the Ld. CIT(A). We have considered the submission made in view of the medical certificate filed before us, which inadvertently could not be filed before the Ld. CIT(A), and the Bench was of the view that the delay ought to have been condoned and the appeal should have be decided on merits. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may ITA No(s). 581/PAT/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2018-19 be upheld as the assessee was non-compliant before both the authorities.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter before the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of his grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 5th June, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 05.06.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

CIT-

CIT(DR), Patna Benches, Patna.

Guard File. //// By order