DEEPAK KUMAR,DHANBAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(10, DHANBAD

ITA 315/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 April 20264 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's consistent non-compliance at all stages, decided to grant one final opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee received substantial commission income and claimed significant expenses but failed to provide any justification or supporting evidence. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of these expenses and added it to the income. The assessee also failed to comply with notices at the CIT(A) stage.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order should be sustained given the assessee's failure to provide evidence, and whether a final opportunity should be granted to the assessee for a fresh examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, – RANCHI BENCH

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – RANCHI BENCH VIRTUAL BENCH AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member ITA No.315/RAN/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deepak Kumar………………………………………………………...Appellant C/o Tuntun Saw Near Jharia Acedmy Amlapara, Jharia Dhanbad Jharkhand-828111 [PAN: CAXPK9033Q] vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Dhanbad…….………………………..……...…..…..Respondent Jharkhand-828111 Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 13, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 16, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.02.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,02,290/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. However, the assessee failed to comply with the notices and did not furnish any details or submissions during the assessment proceedings. Due to such non-compliance, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment based on the material available on record. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the

ITA No.315/Ran/2025 Deepak Kumar assessee had received commission income amounting to Rs.2,52,38,946/- and claim expenses including higher tariff charges amounting to Rs.2,39,14,090/- after claiming such expenses, the assessee declared a total income of Rs.5,02,290/-. Since the assessee failed to explain the nature of the activities carried out during the year and justification for the substantial expenses claimed against such commission income, in absence any such supporting evidences, the assessee disallowed 30% of such expenses claimed amounting to Rs.71,74,227/- and added same to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.76,76,570/-.

Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) however even at the appellate stage, the assessee failed to comply with the notices and did not furnish any supporting documents. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and sustain the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, we noticed that there is a delay of 141 days in filing the present appeal before this Bench and in this regard the assessee has filed an application for condonation of such delay considering the reasons therein, the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. Despite the repeated notices issued by the Registry, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor were any submissions or documents filed. Therefore, the appeal is being directed ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on record, we have considered the submission of the Ld. DR and examine the record, it is evident that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, no supporting evidences was furnished during the assessment proceedings and even

ITA No.315/Ran/2025 Deepak Kumar before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not participate or file necessary details. The conduct of the assessee clearly shows non-cooperation at all stages of the proceedings. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered view that one final opportunity may be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to examine the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and furnish necessary documents without any further default. Considering the consistence non-compliance and lack of diligence on the part of assessee, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The assessee is directed to deposit the said amount with the Income Tax Department and furnish proof of payment before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the submissions and evidences if any filed by the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 16th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Ratnesh Nandan Sahay] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 16.04.2026. DP, PS

ITA No.315/Ran/2025 Deepak Kumar 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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →