GIRISH CHANDRA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(3), PATNA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.615/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Girish Chandra……………………………. …………………....Appellant S/o Harsukh Rai Vyas, Nai Sarak, 11/A Devaki Complex, Chowk Patna City, Patna-800008. [PAN: AFRPC1879H] vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Patna……..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Pradeep Kr., CA appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : August 18, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : September 1st, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Delhi under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 253 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the said delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

I.T.A. No.615/Pat/2024 Girish Chandra 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 by declaring a total income of Rs.2,87,560/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for Scrutiny through CASS and notice under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details and documents in respect of purchase of shares by the assessee during the year amounting to Rs.7,34,691/-. Despite repeated notices, the assessee did not comply with the statutory requirements. Due to non-compliance, the Assessing Officer on perusal of the bank statements a sum of Rs.37,287/- was treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but once again failed to appear or file any submissions. The ld. CIT(A), having no alternative, dismissed the appeal ex parte by upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal raising various ground. However, the main contention of the ld. AR is that the assessee could not represent the case properly before the ld. CIT(A) due to reasons beyond its control. It has prayed for one more opportunity to present its case on merits, asserting that the assessee is now ready to comply with any direction and submit relevant documents. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR objected to such prayer by stating that the assessee had been a habitual defaulter and the lower authorities rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has passed order ex parte in absence of the assessee by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. However, in the interest of substantial justice and fair