PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA,ASSAM vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

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 No.48/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pramod Kumar Sharma………………………………………..…..Appellant Ground Floor VIP Road, CO Pratisksha Hospital Barbari, Kamrup Assam-781005 [PAN: AGBPS9584N] vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati………………………..……...…..…..Respondent Assam-781005 Appearances by: Shri Nihar Sahu, 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 06, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : May 08, 2026

ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the Pratiksha Group of Hospital & Pragjyotishpur Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited on 16.11.2023. During the search proceedings, books of account and documents marked as PKS/01 & PKS/HD/01 were found and seized. Cash amounting to Rs.40,000/- and jewellery valued of Rs.77,05,208/- were also found. In the case of assessee, the original return was filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2021-22, declaring total income

ITA No.48/GTY/2026 Pramod Kumar Sharma of Rs.33,68,850/-. Consequent to search proceedings, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of assessee after obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed return of income declaring the same income as originally return. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued calling for various details. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed from the seized materials particularly annexure PGH-60 that substantial cash receipts were received in the name of M/s Coras Pratiksha Orthopaedic Hospital. On examination of the said documents, the Assessing Officer observed that cash receipts reflected therein were for the assessment year in question was Rs.2,34,49,590/-. Accordingly, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was specifically asked to explain the source and nature of the cash receipts reflected in the PGH-60. Specific queries were raised through notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act vide notice dated 05.10.2024. However, according to the Assessing Officer the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation or supporting documents. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act and added amount of Rs.2,34,49,519/- to the income of the assessee for the assessment year 2021-22, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,68,18,440/-. Simultaneously, corresponding amount was also added on the protective basis in the hands of M/s Coras Pratiksha Orthopaedic Hospital. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however due to repeated non-compliance on the part of the assessee on several occasions, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. At the time of hearing before us, the Learned Counsel for the assessee sought adjournment. However, considering that the matter has already

ITA No.48/GTY/2026 Pramod Kumar Sharma been framed pending for considerable period and further considering the conduct of the assessee in non-properly complying before the lower authorities. We found no justified reasons to adjourn the matter further. Accordingly, adjournment petition was rejected and the matter was heard. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that despite sufficient opportunities granted during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, the assessee fails to furnish supporting evidence relating to the seized material. 5. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. From the record, it is noticed that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer specifically confronted the assessee with seized material marked as Annexure PGH-60 and sought explanation regarding the cash receipts reflected therein. The Assessing Officer had specifically required assessee to explain the nature and source of such cash receipts pertaining to M/s Coras Pratiksha Orthopaedic Hospital. However, no satisfactory explanation along with supporting documents was furnished. It is also observed that the assessee did not properly pursue the matter before the Ld. CIT(A), resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance. At the same time, considering the nature of the addition in the seized material involved, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires proper examination on the basis of supporting documents and relevant evidences. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the matter afresh in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the reassessment proceedings and furnished all supporting documents

ITA No.48/GTY/2026 Pramod Kumar Sharma relating to annexure PGH-60 and complied with all notices issued by the Assessing Officer without seeking unnecessary adjournment. Further, we also note that throughout the proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A), then before this Tribunal, the assessee failed to properly represent and pursue the matter, thereby consuming valuable judicial time. Accordingly, considering the conduct of the assessee, we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the assessee which shall be deposited with the Income Tax Department and receipts of such deposits shall be produced before the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. Upon verification of the same, the Assessing Officer shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 08th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 08.05.2026. DP, PS 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