OM PRAKASH SHA,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(4), BIHARSHARIF, BIHARSHARIF

PDF · subscribers
ITA 87/PAT/2025Status: HeardITAT Patna18 July 2025AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay of 269 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons for the delay to be genuine and bonafide, and noting the absence of any objection from the Revenue. The Tribunal observed that the orders passed by both lower authorities were made in the absence of compliance from the assessee. Considering the assessee's prayer to be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO, and in the interest of justice, the ITAT decided to restore the appeal to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to submit all documentary evidence to substantiate their case, and the AO was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Om Prakash Sha, an individual engaged in trading sweets and bakery items, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 269 days. The assessee's original assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to non-compliance with notices. The AO made an addition of ₹76,25,650/- to the total income, representing unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account during the demonetization period, totaling ₹12,84,250/-, and other deposits amounting to ₹76,25,650/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was also dismissed for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation regarding the late discovery of the CIT(A)'s order. (Question of fact) 2. Whether the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present documentary evidence. (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they came to know about the adverse order of the CIT(A) only on 27.01.2025, despite the order being dated 23.03.2024. They claimed the order was not properly communicated and was found under the 'For Your Information' tab instead of 'For your action'. The assessee's primary prayer was for the appeal to be remitted back to the AO to allow them to place all necessary documentary evidence to prove their case. The assessee relied on judicial pronouncements that cases should be decided on merits rather than technicalities. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay. The Revenue also did not raise any objection to the assessee's prayer for remittance of the case back to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘Patna’ BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Rastogi, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Hearing: 07.07.2025Pronounced: 18.07.2025

(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Om Prakash Sha ITO , Ward 2(4) S/o Sarayug Saw, Karay Biharsharif Vs. Parsurai, Nalanda, Bihar-801304 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. DFYPS6484C Assessee by : Shri A.K. Rastogi, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR Date of hearing: 07.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 18.07.2025 O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(E)”] dated 23.03.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 269 days for this the assessee has filed condonation petition, which are as follows-

“The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna Reference: Om Prakash Sha, Sto Sarayug Saw, Karay Parsurai, Nalanda 801304, Bihar [PAN: DFYPS6484C] for A.Y. 2017-18 Subject: Petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Reference: Order of CIT(A), NFAC dated 23/03/2024.

Om Prakash Sha; A.Y. 2017-18 Sir, The Ld. CIT(A) has passed order in Appeal No. CIT(A),Patna- 1/11369/2019-20 on 23/03/2024. It is stated that on 27/01/2025, the appellant has received hard copy of show cause notice u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, from the office of Income Tax Officer. VU-1(2)(3), Muzaffarpur (stationed at Patna) through Speed Post. Thereafter, on browsing of e- portal the appellant has found the impugned order dismissing the appeal on 23/03/2024 under the tab "For Your Information" whereas normally the orders are uploaded under the tab 'For your action'. There was no communication of uploading of this order either on the registered email or registered mobile no. Thus, the appellant came to know about the adverse order of Ld. CIT(A) only on 27/01/2025. Accordingly, the appellant is filing this appeal which can be said to be a belated appeal, if limitation is counted from the date of its order. However, it is stated that the impugned order came to the knowledge of the appellant on 27/01/2025 and therefore, according to the appellant, the present appeal is not a belated appeal. However, without entering into controversy, it is respectfully submitted that delay, if any, may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be heard on merits.

Submitted”

3.

On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. DR did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncement that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned.

4.

The brief fact of the case of the assessee is that the assessee is an individual deriving income from trading of sweets, mixtures, handmade bakery biscuits, etc. The assessment order has been passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the ground that there has been Om Prakash Sha; A.Y. 2017-18 deposit of cash in bank during the demonetization period amounting to ₹12,84,250/-. The AO in the assessment proceeding has also noted that there has been a total deposit of ₹76,25,650/- in the bank account of the assessee and assessee did not file return of income. Therefore, the source of cash deposit remains unexplained. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee but there was no compliance, as a result of which the assessment was done by making an addition of ₹76,25,650/-, to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as further there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee.

5.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee has preferred the appeal before us.

6.

The ld. AR instead of arguing into the merits of the case only prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be remitted back to the file of the ld. AO after giving an opportunity to the assessee to place all the documentary evidences essential to prove his case.

7.

The ld. DR did raise any objection for the same.

8.

Upon hearing the submission of the Counsel of the respected parties, and on perusal of the order of lower authorities there is no denying to this fact that order passed by both the authorities when there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. The prayer of the assessee is that the assessee has to give an opportunity to place his case before the ld. AO. Keeping in view the submission, considering the order passed by the ld. lower authorities and for the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to place all the documentary

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.07.2025.

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 →