NALANDA CONSTRUCTION,BIHARSHARIF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 175 & 177 and 176 & 178/ Pat/2026 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2015-16 Nalanda Construction……...……….…………………….........Appellant Professor Colony, Dhaneshwar Ghat Biharsharif, Bihar-803101 [PAN: AAGFN3780N] vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Biharsharif………………………………...Respondent Appearances by: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AR, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Mingma Sherpa, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 20, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : May 21, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: These appeals filed by the same assessee are directed against the separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’) for the different assessment years, all dated 13.08.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’). The details of the appeals are as under: - ITA No. 175/Pat/2026 for the assessment year 2014-15, arising out of the assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act; ITA No. 176/Pat/2026 for the assessment year 2015-16, arising out of the assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act; ITA No. 177/Pat/2026 for the assessment year 2014-15, arising out of the penalty proceedings order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 25.09.2022; ITA No. 178/Pat/2026 for the

ITA Nos. 175 & 177 and 176 & 178/ Pat/2026 AYs: 2014-15 and 2015-16; Nalanda Construction assessment year 2015-16, arising out of the penalty proceedings order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.09.2022. Since all the appeals are filed by the same assessee and are interconnected with each other, all four appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. However, for the sake of convenience, we first take up ITA No. 175/Pat/2026 for the assessment year 2014-15 as the lead case, and the findings recorded therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining appeals. 2. The assessee has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 503 days and has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for such delay. We, after considering the reasons stated therein, are satisfied that there was a reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing these appeals within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 503 days is condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, in the case of the assessee, the return of income was filed for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring income of Rs.1,29,590/-, and the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny due to large expenses claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.2,29,590/- as against the income declared by the assessee. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that an amount of Rs.18,37,455/- was shown as security deposit, but interest on the same was not shown in the profit and loss account. Thus, the interest income at the average rate of 8%, which comes to Rs.1,46,996/-, was differed and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, proceedings u/s 147 of the

ITA Nos. 175 & 177 and 176 & 178/ Pat/2026 AYs: 2014-15 and 2015-16; Nalanda Construction Act were initiated against the assessee and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee declared the income at Rs.1,29,590/-, which was declared in the earlier return of income filed on 23.11.2014. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued, but the assessee did not comply with the notices. Further, a show cause notice was also issued to the assessee, but due to non-compliance, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,46,996/- to the total income of the assessee and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.2,76,586/-. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and the assessee failed to explain the reasons for such delay before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A), without going into the merits of the case, simply dismissed the appeal on the issue of delay itself without looking into the merits of the case. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order without looking into the merits of the case. Therefore, the issues involved in the appeal need to be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A), after condoning the delay in filing the appeal, on the merits of the case. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. We, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record. We find that in the present case of the assessee, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a considerable delay, and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine 3

ITA Nos. 175 & 177 and 176 & 178/ Pat/2026 AYs: 2014-15 and 2015-16; Nalanda Construction without looking into the merits of the case. Therefore, we remand the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on the merits of the case. The assessee is also directed to file a proper application for condonation of such delay, which shall be considered by the Ld. CIT(A), and the issue shall be decided in accordance with law. In terms of the above, the instant appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Since the issues involved in ITA Nos.176, 177 & 178/Pat/2026 are identical to the issues decided in ITA No.175/Pat/2026, our findings and directions shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals also. 8. In term of the above, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 21st May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 21.05.2026. 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