PRABHAT RANJAN,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (5), MADHUBANI

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.08.2025 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 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 by declaring total income of Rs.14,35,310/-. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee partially comply to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and submitted certain documents, however, according to the Assessing Officer the

I.T.A. No.416/Pat/2025 Prabhat Ranjan; AY: 2021-22 details furnished were not satisfactory. The Assessing Officer made the additions by disallowing the exemption deduction of Rs.12,09,470/- as claimed by the assessee, and addition u/s 68 of the Act is unexplained cash credit of Rs.30,08,000/- and charged u/s 115BBE of the Act and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the Ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief to the extent of Rs.2,52,791/- and sustained disallowance of Rs.9,56,679/- out of Rs.12,09,470/- relating to disallowance of expenses. But the addition u/s 68 of the Act is Rs.30,08,000/- was confirmed. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR contended that the addition of Rs.30,08,000/- u/s 68 of the Act is unjustified as the amount represent past savings and explain bank deposit made by the assessee. The assessee has furnished supporting documents in order to explain the nature and source of deposits; therefore, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law. He also stated that disallowance of Rs.9,66,679/- is out of Rs.12,09,470/- by granting relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs.2,52,791/- was not proper, therefore, the issue needs to be examined by this Tribunal, and the relief granted to the assessee is inadequate considering the evidence furnished by the assessee. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the decision 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 observed that the assessee claims to have furnished documentary evidence in support of the disallowance of Rs.9,56,679/- out of Rs.12,09,470/- which were not properly appreciated by the lower authorities even the bank deposits of

I.T.A. No.416/Pat/2025 Prabhat Ranjan; AY: 2021-22 Rs.30,08,000/- are explained source of including past savings of the assessee which needs to be proper verification. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we remand back the issue 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. 7. In term of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 28 th April

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28.04.2026. 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