SANJEEV KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 264/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 September 2025AY 2014-15Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted a delay of 56 days in filing the appeal and condoned it after finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without going into merits, which is contrary to law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2014-15 declaring Rs.5,53,810. The AO added Rs.8,25,480 due to non-compliance and lack of evidence regarding commission paid. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjeev Kumar...……………………………. …………………....Appellant Om Enterprises, Main Bazar, Bihta, Bihar- 801503. [PAN: ASWPK7096A] vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Patna……..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : August 19, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : September 1st, 2025 आदेश / ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the NFAC under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 56 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.

Sanjeev Kumar 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,53,810/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for Scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details and documents in respect of a sum of Rs.32,77,151/- has been debited towards ‘commission paid’ by the assessee against the total receipt of commission of Rs.33,01,916/-. Due to non-compliance and in the absence of any evidence, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.825480/- to the total income of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non-compliance by simply sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer.

5.

Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the assessee did not turn up before this Bench. Although, Registry has issued notice to the assessee. As no one turned up at the time of hearing, we cannot keep this appeal pending for inordinate period, therefore, we heard this matter with the assistance of the ld. DR.

6.

The ld. DR stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and it did not turn up before the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) and even before this Bench, therefore, the appeal needs to be dismissed in limine.

7.

We, after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, find that although the assessee did not turn up before the authorities below, however, the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex parte without going into the merits of the case by simply dismissing the Sanjeev Kumar appeal of the assessee, which is contrary to the provisions of law. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, feel it necessary to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the appeal on merits of the case. We direct the assessee to comply all notices during the remand proceedings.

8.

In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 1st September, 2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →