DHARMENDRA KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4(2), PATNA

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 336 days. Hence the delay is condoned.

Brief facts of the case are that the assesese filed his return of income electronically on 29.03.2018 showing total income of Rs.4,82,400/- after claiming deduction under chapter VI. The assessee derives income from house property and other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment through CASS to examine cash deposit during the demonetization period. Accordingly statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee received Rs.6,50,000/- in cash through the sale of old Mahindra Scropio, SUV, Model 2010 to Shri Rakesh Kr. Singh of (A.Y. 2017-2018) Dharmendra Kumar Begusarai in the month of September, 2016 . The assessee also received advance in cash amounting to Rs.2,80,000/- from Mrs. Rajrani of Sahebganj in Jharkhand for the sale of Flat no. 101, Kailash Apartment William’s Town, Deoghar in the month of November, 2016. The assessee also sold a land at Patna City and received Rs.3,20,000/- vide deed executed on 14.01.2016 to Mr. R.P.N. Singh. A show-cause notice was issued by the ld. Assessing Officer to the assessee to explain that why Rs.14,70,000/- should not be treated as unexplained /unaccounted money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. However, no explanation/reply was offered either by the assesese or his authorized representative. The assessee neither submitted any confirmation from whom cash was received nor any documentary evidence produced in support of his claim. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer determined the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs.17,07,400/- and penalty proceedings were also initiated. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the (A.Y. 2017-2018) Dharmendra Kumar assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/07/2025.