DHRUBAJYOTI BORGOHAIN,GUWAHATI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

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.26/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dhrubajyoti Borgohain………………………………….……………Appellant House No.32, Jyotipath, Janakpur Chariali, Kahilipara, Guwahati Assam-781019 [PAN:ACLPB5177A] vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati…………..……...…..……………Respondent Assam-781005 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 05, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : May 06, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.10.2025 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 2016-17. 2. The assessee has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 13 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the affidavit and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 13 days is condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

ITA No.26/GTY/2026 Dhrubajyoti Borgohain 3. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 01.04.2021 at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee. During the course of search, certain documents and digital evidences marked as DJB-01 to DJB-04 and digital evidences marked as DJB/HD/05 were found and seized. Further, cash amounting to Rs.3,02,000/- was also found, out of which Rs.3,00,000/- was seized. During the search, jewellery valued at Rs.31,76,691/- was inventoried, as the assessee was engaged in the business of civil construction under the name and style of M/s Dhruba Jyoti Borgohain. The assessee had originally filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, declaring total income of Rs.99,90,960/-. Pursuant to the search proceedings, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated, and notice u/s 148 was issued after obtaining due approval from the competent authority. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income declaring the same income as in the original return. During the re-assessment proceedings, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued, calling for various details, however, the assessee failed to comply with the notices. A specific notice dated 13.11.2024 u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, requiring the assessee to explain the transactions recorded in the seized documents marked as DJB-01 and DJB-03, and to clarify whether such transactions were recorded in the bank accounts and offered for taxation. Despite several opportunities, no compliance was made and no explanation was furnished. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the Assessing Officer treated an amount of Rs.1,03,02,696/- as unexplained money/expenditure u/s 69A/69C of the Act, and brought the same to the tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had delayed payment of ESI and PF amounting to Rs.78,416/-, and the same was disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act.

ITA No.26/GTY/2026 Dhrubajyoti Borgohain 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, due to repeated non-compliance, despite multiple opportunities, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, however an adjournment application was filed. On perusal of the record, we find the assessee had been seeking adjournment on earlier occasions. Still considering the repeated non-compliance, the Bench proceeded to heard the matter with the assistance of the Ld. DR, who supported the order of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. From the record, we observed that the Assessing Officer had specifically issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 13.11.2024, requiring the assessee to explain the transactions recorded in seized material marked as DJB-01, DJB-03, including whether such transactions were recorded in the books of accounts and offered for taxation. However, the assessee failed to respond to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, and no supporting documents were furnished during the assessment proceedings. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not properly comply with the notices in order to prove its case. Before this Tribunal, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the claim of the assessee. In such circumstances, the authorities below have no option but to proceed on the basis of available material on record. However, considering the nature of the addition and the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one final opportunity to substantiate his case.

ITA No.26/GTY/2026 Dhrubajyoti Borgohain Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, with a direction that the assessee shall produce all necessary supporting documents and evidences in order to prove whether the transactions recorded in seized material marked as DJB-01 and DJB-03 were recorded in books of accounts or not. The assessee shall also establish whether such transactions were offered to tax while filing return of income for the relevant year. We also direct the Assessing Officer to examine the issue in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and considering the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee in accordance with law. It is evident from the record that the assessee has repeatedly failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and before the Ld. CIT(A), and even before this Tribunal, such conduct results in unnecessary consumption of valuable judicial time. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee. The assessee is also directed to deposit the same with the Income Tax Department, and proof of such payment shall be produced before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 06th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 06.05.2026. DP, PS

ITA No.26/GTY/2026 Dhrubajyoti Borgohain 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