ABDUR RAZZAQUE,KARIMGANJ vs. ITO WARD KARIMGANJ, KARIMGANJ

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.158/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Abdur Razzaque……………………………….…………………...Appellant M/s Tazal Agency, Near New Life Line Hospital, Kanishalil, Karimganj Assam-788711 [PAN: AKLPR9902M] vs. ITO, Ward, Karimganj……………………..…………..…...…..…..Respondent Assam-788720 Appearances by: Shri J.P Gupta, AR, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Mrs. I. Gyaneshori Devi, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 15, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : May 19, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [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 the assessee is an individual, did not file the return of income for the Assessment Year 2020-21. Based on the information from the Insight Portal that an amount of Rs.3,19,95,207/- had escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and reopened the case of the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer received the bank statements of the assessee. On perusal of the bank statements, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee maintained three bank accounts with Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, wherein cash amounting to Rs.2,83,32,085/- was

ITA No.158/GTY/2026 Abdur Razzaque deposited. The assessee also received interest income of Rs.1,27,137/- from the said bank accounts and Rs.39,370/- from Meghalaya Cement Limited. The assessee made sales of Rs.34,94,615/- during the relevant year. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee to furnish the relevant documents to substantiate his claim; however, the assessee remained non-responsive. Accordingly, the cash deposits of Rs.2,83,32,085/- were added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Similarly, the assessee did not submit any details regarding the interest income of Rs.1,66,507/-, comprising Rs.1,27,137/- from Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and Rs.39,370/- from Meghalaya Cement Limited. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the interest income under the head income from other sources and, in the absence of any submission from the assessee regarding sales, calculated net profit @ 8% on total sales, which came to Rs.2,79,729/-. Finally, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by determining the total taxable income at Rs.2,87,78,001/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the assessee raised various grounds. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and remanded one of the grounds to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, thereby partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. 4. Still aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that, in the present case, the assessment order was passed ex parte, as the assessee could not properly represent the case before the Assessing Officer. Further, before the Ld. CIT(A), no supporting documents were furnished, in order to substantiate his claim. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and, one of the ground, remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination. Accordingly, it was prayed that the instant appeal of the assessee may be remanded back to the

ITA No.158/GTY/2026 Abdur Razzaque Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issues afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decisions of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. From the record, we notice that, while passing the assessment order, as the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer, therefore, certain additions were made in the case of the assessee. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not pursue the matter diligently in order to substantiate his claim. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had no other option but to sustain certain additions in the case of the assessee. Considering the facts borne out from the records, we feel it necessary to remand the entire issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issues after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, considering the conduct of the assessee, which resulted in unnecessary consumption of valuable judicial time, we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the assessee, which shall be deposited with the Income Tax Department, and proof of such deposit shall be produced before the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. 7. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 19th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 19.05.2026. DP, PS

ITA No.158/GTY/2026 Abdur Razzaque 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