SUSHIL KUMAR,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, W - 1TEZPUR, TEZPUR,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.81/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sushil Kumar…………………………………………………..…..Appellant Vill-Chheoki Naini, Allahabad Uttar Pradesh-211008 [PAN: APUPK9993B] vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tezpur……..………………………..……...…..…..Respondent Assam-784001 Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 07, 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 10.12.2025 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 2019-20. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee had not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration. As per the information available with the department, it was found that assessee had earned salary income to the tune of Rs.27,99,398/- and had also purchased motor vehicle for Rs.16,85,100/- during the relevant assessment order. In spite of such high value transaction, the assessee failed to file the return of income for the year under consideration. Accordingly, notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued, asking assessee to explain why notice u/s 148 of the Act should not be issued, however, the

ITA No.81/GTY/2026; A.Y: 2019-20 Sushil Kumar assessee failed to comply with the said notice. Thereafter, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the said notice, assessee also neither filed return nor furnish any explanation. Subsequently, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued followed by notice u/s 144 of the Act, stating that the assessee had purchased a motor vehicle amounting to Rs.16,85,100/- and earned salary income of Rs.27,99,398/-, however, no reply was furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the State Bank of India and pay accounts for obtaining Form 26AS and other details. However, no reply was received from the State Bank of India and pay accounts office A.O.C, Secunderabad. It was further verified Form 26AS that the assessee had received salary income amounting to Rs.25,90,393/- out of Rs.23,77,420/- was received from the State Bank of India and Rs.22,12,973/- from CGDA. Since, assessee failed to furnish any details despite several opportunities granted during the course of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of Rs.25,90,393/- as undisclosed income along with Rs.16,85,100/- as unexplained expenditure added the same to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however the Ld. CIT(A) without properly examine the facts of the case, simply sustain the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Still aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing before this Bench, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notices. Therefore, we proceeded to hear the matter with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee had admittedly earned salary income but failed to file the return of income and also

ITA No.81/GTY/2026; A.Y: 2019-20 Sushil Kumar failed to furnish any details before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was constrained to make the additions due to non- compliance by the assessee. 6. We, after hearing the submissions of the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on record. We find that due to non-compliance before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), the case of the assessee cannot be properly examined. It is observed that assessee had received salary income and most of the transactions were through banking channels, however, relevant documents and explanations were not furnished by the assessee due to non-filing of return of income. Considering the facts and 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, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish Form No.16, bank account statements and other supporting evidences in order to substantiate the claim without any default. 7. In terms of the above, 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

ITA No.81/GTY/2026; A.Y: 2019-20 Sushil Kumar 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