BIHAR PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT,CIR-2, PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 599/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 November 2025AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for AY 2010-11, the Assessing Officer's order dated 27.12.2017 was cryptic and lacked detailed findings. The assessee had not represented the case satisfactorily before the CIT(A). Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the learned AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the matter after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Since the facts pertaining to this additional ground required verification at the end of the learned AO, the Tribunal was of the view that the ends of justice would be met by restoring the appeal to the file of the learned AO. The AO was directed to re-adjudicate the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that where procedural irregularities or lack of proper adjudication occur at lower levels, and facts require verification, restoring the matter to the AO with directions for a fresh hearing serves the ends of justice. The operative direction was to restore both appeals to the file of the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Ltd., filed appeals against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11 and 2011-12. For AY 2010-11, the assessee's counsel submitted that the order was passed ex-parte before the CIT(A) and that complete details could not be filed before the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee requested the matter be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. For AY 2011-12, the assessee raised an additional ground concerning an amount of Rs. 3,18,78,510 received from IIT, Patna, which was claimed to be a capital receipt and disclosed in the balance sheet, subject to CAG and statutory audits. The revenue did not oppose the assessee's prayer for AY 2010-11.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal for AY 2010-11 should be restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's plea of an ex-parte order before the CIT(A) and inability to file complete details before the AO? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's contention: The order was passed ex-parte before the CIT(A), and complete details could not be filed before the AO. Therefore, the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after filing complete details and evidences. Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not oppose the assessee's prayer for restoration. 2. Whether the additional ground raised by the assessee for AY 2011-12, pertaining to an amount of Rs. 3,18,78,510 received from IIT, Patna, being a capital receipt, requires verification by the Assessing Officer? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the nature of receipt and its treatment). Assessee's contention: The amount of Rs. 3,18,78,510 received from IIT, Patna, is a capital receipt and not a contractual receipt, and it has been disclosed in the balance sheet, subject to audits. The facts require verification. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Abhi Sarkar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Hearing: 26.11.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

O R D E R PerDuvvuru RL Reddy, VP:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”]even dated 13.06.2024 for the AYs2010-11 & 2013- 14.

2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order was passed ex-parte before the learned CIT (A) and also that complete details could not be filed before AO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that the issue may kindly be restored to the file of the ld. AO so that the complete details/ evidences could be filed and issue be decided on merit afresh.

2.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the learned AO passed a very cryptic order u/s 143/ 147 of the Act dated 27.12.2017, without giving any detailed finding. We further note that the assessee has not represented the case before the learned CIT (A) as the learned CIT (A) in para no.2 noted that the assessee has not furnished the details/ submission satisfactorily. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the end of justice would be made if the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the learned AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

“1. For that the alleged amount of Rs.3,18,78,510 received from IIT, Patna do not pertain to PY 2011-12 corresponding to AY 2012-13 and is not in the nature of and on account of contractual receipt received /contractual payment, rather the said amount is in the nature of capital receipt and the same has been disclosed in the balance sheet, which is subject of CAG audit as well as statutory audit under various laws.” 3.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal which is admitted and since, the facts of the additional grounds are required verification at the end of the learned AO, accordingly, we are of the view that the end of justice would be made if the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the learned AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →