NARENDARA KUMAR,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITR WARD 5(1), PATNA, PATNA

Per Bench: These three appeals have been filed by the same assessee against separate orders passed by the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), all dated 23.09.2025. The said orders arise from assessment orders framed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the respective assessment years. The details of the appeals are as follows: ITA No. 99/Pat/2026 for the assessment year 2018–19, arising out of the assessment order dated 14.03.2023; ITA No. 100/Pat/2026 for the assessment year 2019–20, arising out of the assessment order dated 06.03.2024; and ITA No. 101/Pat/2026 for the assessment year 2020–21, arising out of the assessment order dated 21.02.2025.

I.T.A. Nos.99, 100 & 101/Pat/2026 Narendara Kumar; AY: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Since all the appeals pertain to the same assessee, arise from similar facts, and involve common issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from ITA No. 99/Pat/2026 for the assessment year 2018–19, 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 60 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 60 days is condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee for the assessment year under consideration, had not filed its return of income within the prescribed time. Subsequently, based on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the department, it was observed that assessee had undertaken certain financial transactions during the relevant year. The particulars of the transactions noticed by the Assessing Officer which were that the assessee had purchased immovable property worth Rs.20,80,000/-, and certain banking transactions and deposits were also reflected in the account. In absence of return of income, the source of such investment, the nature of deposits and the taxability of any capital gain or other income arising from these transactions remain unexplained. It was further noted that the assessee had neither offered such income to the tax nor pay due taxes thereon. Accordingly, the Ld. Assessing Officer, after obtaining the necessary statutory approval from the competent authority, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, and issued notice u/s 148 of the

I.T.A. Nos.99, 100 & 101/Pat/2026 Narendara Kumar; AY: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Act. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed a return of income, declaring total income of Rs.3,34,640/-. Thereafter, statutory notice u/s 142(1) were issued and duly served upon the assessee, calling for details and documentary evidence to substantiate the return filed, and explain the nature and source of the transactions identified by the department. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was specifically required to furnish details regarding the source of investment in the property supporting documentary evidence, such as sale deed, and explanation regarding the bank deposits and other financial transactions. However, despite sufficient opportunity, the assessee failed to furnish requisite documentary evidence and did not properly comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. In view of the persistent non-compliance, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made additions amounting to Rs.20,80,000/-, was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Further, a sum of Rs.32,34,820/- was treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. Accordingly, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.56,81,538/-. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions and dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that assessee had failed to substantiate its claim with supporting evidence. 5. Still aggrieved by the above order, 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 bad in law. Since, order of the Ld. CIT(A) was an ex-parte order, therefore, another chance may be given to the assessee by setting aside the issue to the file of Assessing Officer.

I.T.A. Nos.99, 100 & 101/Pat/2026 Narendara Kumar; AY: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the authorities below. 7. We after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, it is evident that during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) had issued multiple notices to the assessee requiring it to furnish necessary details and documentary evidence to substantiate its claim. However, assessee failed to respond effectively and did not properly participate in the proceedings. The conduct of the assessee clearly indicates a lack of due diligence in complying with the statutory requirement. At the same time, it is also settled principle of law that no person should be condemned unheard and every, assessee must be supported reasonable opportunity of being heard before the adverse decision is taken. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair play, we are of the considered view that assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case and furnish necessary evidence. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction that Assessing Officer shall determine entire issue afresh in accordance with law. The assessee shall fully cooperate in the proceedings and furnish relevant documentary evidence including details of property, transactions, source of the investment and banking records. While doing so, the Assessing Officer should provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR also emphasized that the assessee must cooperate and substantiate its claim with proper evidence. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

I.T.A. Nos.99, 100 & 101/Pat/2026 Narendara Kumar; AY: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Since, the issues involved in ITA No.100/Pat/2026, assessment year 2019-20 & ITA No.101/Pat/2026, assessment year 2020-21 are identical in nature those in ITA No.99/Pat/2026, our findings and directions in the said appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals as well. 8. In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 22nd April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated: 22.04.2026. 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