JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV,GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAYA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 73/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 October 2026AY 2022-237 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unrepresented and had not filed an adjournment petition. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had made additions under Sections 69, 69A, and 56(2)(x), resulting in an assessed income of Rs. 1,20,33,199/-. It was also noted that the assessee had failed to represent their case before the CIT(A). Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and decision. The assessee was directed to substantiate their case with cogent documents and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal stated that no further leniency would be granted if the assessee failed to comply. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jitendra Kumar Yadav, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The assessee had declared income from house property, other sources, and exempt agricultural income. The case was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices were issued. The assessee provided a partial reply but subsequently ignored further notices. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted cash deposits of Rs. 44,55,000/- and Rs. 81,39,000/- in an Axis Bank account, which were treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. Additionally, the AO added Rs. 15,52,428/- under Section 56(2)(x) for the purchase of six immovable properties and Rs. 14,28,571/- as unexplained investment under Section 69. The total assessed income was Rs. 1,20,33,199/-. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, despite the assessee having grounds of appeal against additions made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 69A, 56(2)(x), and 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the ITAT, as the assessee was unrepresented. However, the initial grounds of appeal would have challenged the additions made by the AO. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the Sr. DR, argued that the assessee showed disrespect to the notices issued by the lower authorities, failed to present the case before the CIT(A), and did not appear before the ITAT, nor filed an adjournment petition. The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 56(2)(x),Section 69,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.07.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.73/PAT/2026 Assessment Year : 2022-2023

Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs. ITO, Gaya 325 Rampur A.P Colony, Gaya, Bihar- 823001. [PAN: ABQPY5755P] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 28.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06.10.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 09.12.2026, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1083491656(1) on the following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA No.73/Pat/2026

3 ITA No.73/Pat/2026

2.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income by declaring income of Rs.6,74,720/- under the head income from house property and other sources and agricultural income of Rs.3,25,800/- which is exempt. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished part reply on 04.07.2023. Thereafter, the assessee ignored the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer issued show-cause notices and the assessee furnished reply in its submission stated that cash deposits or withdrawals made in the context of

4 ITA No.73/Pat/2026 agricultural activity out of which Rs.3,25,800/- had been disclosed in the ITR. The assessee had received commission of Rs.1,04,000/- (include 85500/- received from Tata Communication) which was disclosed under the head other sources. It is noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.44,55,000/- in account no.918020097497066 out of which he has made time deposits of Rs.20,00,000/-. As per the show-cause notice dated 05.01.2024, the assessee was asked as to why the cash deposits in Axis Bank account of Rs.81,39,000/- should not be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee did not file any reply on the show-cause notice. Accordingly, the cash deposits of Rs.81,39,000/- was treated as income u/s 69A of the Act. Further, it was observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased six other immovable property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1 crore from Shri Jayawant Kumar Sinha and the same was registered at District Registration Office Gaya. Accordingly, as per show-cause notice dated 05.01.2024, the income was added u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act of Rs.15,52,428/-. The Assessing Officer also noted that unexplained investment u/s 69 towards purchase of immovable property of Rs.14,28,571/-. Accordingly, the income was assessed at Rs.1,20,33,199/-.

3.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on 10.03.2024. The ld. CIT(A) provided various opportunities to the assessee

5 ITA No.73/Pat/2026 but the assessee failed to submit reply. The ld. CIT(A) observed in the order as under:

“5.1 I have carefully considered the assessment order, the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal, and the materials available on record. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant was also issued notices under section 250 by the NFAC, dated 27.03.2025, 17.09.2025, and 18.11.2025, specifically requiring him to furnish ground-wise written submissions along with supporting documentary evidence. These notices clearly provided adequate opportunity to substantiate the claims made in the appeal. However, the appellant failed to file any reply or documentary evidence in response to both notices. Thus, the appeal has been adjudicated based on the material already available on record.” 3.1 The ld. CIT(A), after considering the materials available before him, for want of non-prosecution, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

5.

No one represented on behalf of the assessee. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee’s attitude is disrespected to the notices issued by the lower authorities and did not present the case before the ld. CIT(A) and even before the Hon’ble Bench, the assessee neither filed adjournment petition nor presented even in the previous occasions too.

6.

Considering the submission of the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, we noted that the case was first listed for hearing 09.02.26 and the assessee filed adjournment petition. We note that on the date of hearing i.e on 28.07.26, no one represented on behalf of the assessee. We note from the order of the Assessing Officer that the

6 ITA No.73/Pat/2026 Assessing Officer has made addition u/s 69 and 69A and 56(2)(x) and income was assessed at Rs.1,20,33,199/-. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not represented his case as stated supra vide para no.5.1 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). Considering the facts of the case and in the interests of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and decision as per law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to substantiate his case with cogent documents in support of his claim and not seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.

7.

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

Order pronounced on 06.10.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 06.10.2026 RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

7 ITA No.73/Pat/2026 //True copy// By order

Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →