Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company failed to file its return of income for AY 2017-18. Information revealed a deposit of Rs. 51,71,450 in bank accounts. Proceedings under Section 147 were initiated, and the deposit was added as unexplained income under Section 69A.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly examining the materials or affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving the assessee proper opportunity to present its case.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 69A, 144
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: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rameshwari Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.…..…………………....Appellant C/o Lakshman Prasad and Kamlesh Kr. Yadav (Directors), Jai Gurudev Automobile, Gaya Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824113. [PAN: AAHCR9701K] vs. NFAC, Delhi…………………….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 23, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : July 24, 2025 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate orders dated 29.07.24 & 31.07.24 passed by the NFAC ["CIT(A)"]. Since the issues involved in & 188/Patna/2025 for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are identical except for figures and assessment years, both appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are first taken from ITA No.187/Patna/2025.
ITA No. 187/Patna/ 2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 - Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file its return of income for the assessment &188/Pat/2025 Rameshwari Agro Services Pvt. Ltd year 2017-18. Based on information received from the Insight portal of the Income Tax Department, it was found that the assessee-company had deposited a sum of Rs.51,71,450 in its Andhra Bank accounts during the relevant financial year. In view of the above facts, proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") were initiated and notice under Section 148 was issued. The assessee partially complied and filed a return claiming a loss of Rs.388,487, but the same was held to be invalid by the Assessing Officer. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish relevant bank statements for the relevant financial year, i.e, 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, though details for unrelated years were filed. A balance sheet and profit & loss account for the year ending 31.03.2017 were also filed. In absence of verifiable evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer completed the reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144, by treating the entire deposit of Rs.5,17,1450 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but failed to comply with notices on several dates Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order, upholding the assessment made by the Assessing Officer.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee has filed this appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 198 days, accompanied by a petition explaining the reasons for the delay. After considering the contents of the delay condonation petition and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits 5. During the course of hearing the learned AR submitted that the ld. CITA) passed the order ex parte without properly examining the &188/Pat/2025 Rameshwari Agro Services Pvt. Ltd materials on record or affording effective opportunity of hearing. He therefore prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to represent its case before the lower authority.
On the other hand, the learned DR, however, opposed the prayer, contending that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and failed to comply even during reassessment and appellate proceedings 7. We have heard rivel submission of parties and perused the records. On facts, we find that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex parte, and the assessee has not been able to contest its case before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided one more opportunity to present its case. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal after giving due opportunity to the assessee. 8.
A.Y. 2018-19 - Brief facts in are similar and arise out of identical circumstances for the assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, our findings and directions in ITA No.187/Patna/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal as well. 9. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 24th July, 2025.