BRAJESH KUMAR SUMAN,MUNGER vs. ITO WARD 1(1), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

ITA 433/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 October 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Brajesh Kumar Suman, filed two appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (referred to as Ld. CIT(A)) dated 15.04.2026. These orders confirmed the assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 22.03.2023, which made an addition of Rs. 1,30,65,000/- under section 69A and Rs. 23,000/- on account of variation in interest income. A penalty order under section 271AAC1 was also passed on 11.09.2023, which was also confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the quantum appeal order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and had not decided all the grounds of appeal on their merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) concerning the quantum appeal and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the penalty order was also set aside and restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal. The Tribunal expressly left no issue undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals without providing an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as contended by the assessee? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding all the grounds of appeal on merits, as contended by the assessee? The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the quantum appeal order ex-parte and did not provide an opportunity of being heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The revenue, relying on the orders of the lower authorities, sought dismissal of the appeals. The ITAT noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 271AAC1,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA ‘DB’ BENCH

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh, AR
For Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhusan Garg, CIT, DR on behalf of Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.10.2026Pronounced: 16.10.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These two Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 15.04.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2018-19, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order and order of penalty imposed u/s 271AAC1 of the Act.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 22.03.2023 by making addition of Rs.1,30,65,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, and ITA Nos.432 & 433/Pat/2026 Brajesh Kumar Suman; A.Y: 2018-19 Rs.23,000/- on account of va

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →