MRITUNJAY SINGH,KUDRA vs. AO, SASARAM

ITA 454/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 October 2026AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file any explanation to the show cause notice issued by the AO. However, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did file certain details. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that primary documents to support the claim that bank account credits represented business receipts were not filed, and thus upheld the addition. The ITAT found that the assessee's claim that bank credits were business receipts and withdrawals related to business transactions had not been examined by the AO. Since the assessee also wanted to file supporting documents, the Tribunal considered it fit to set aside the impugned assessment and restore it to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment. This would involve necessary verification and affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. The issue of whether the addition was justified was not decided on merits but was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mritunjay Singh, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Patna Bench, against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, dated 04.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18. There was a delay of 106 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 3,17,12,299/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in an ex-parte manner, and the Ld. CIT(A) also decided the matter without considering the assessee's submissions. The revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessee's explanation despite the assessment being ex-parte before the AO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 3,17,12,299/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid, considering the assessment was ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) allegedly did not consider the assessee's submissions? Assessee's Contention: The AO made the addition in an ex-parte manner, and the Ld. CIT(A) also decided the matter without considering the assessee's submissions. The assessee prayed for the matter to be set aside to the AO for necessary verification. The assessee also wished to file supporting documents. Revenue's Contention: Though the assessment before the AO was ex-parte, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the matter after considering the assessee’s explanation. The revenue prayed for the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH: PATNA

Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Gopalan Gurusamy

Per Gopalan Gurusamy, AM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 04.12.2025 for the AY 2017-18, vide Appeal No. NFAC/2016- 17/10508261. 2 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Mritunjay Singh

2.

There is a delay of 106 days in the filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with an affidavit requesting to condone the delay in the filing of the appeal. Considering the reasons given in the affidavit, we condone the delay in the fil

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 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →