NEELABH KUMAR JHA,KATIHAR vs. ITO WARD- 1 (5), KATIHAR

It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 14 days for this the assessee has filed condonation petition., which are as follows- On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R 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.

Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee being an individual filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. 4,26,240/-. It has been gathered that the assessee has a current account with ICICI Bank Ltd. and further found that higher value cash transaction in aforementioned account has been done for a period of 01.09.2011 to 30.01.2012. The enquiry made by Investigation Wing, Bihar, ITO, Ward-1(5), Katihar, a notice u/s 148 was issued and duly served upon the assessee, in response to the assessee filed return of income, subsequently statutory notices and final & 289/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Neelabh Kumar Jha particulars along with draft order with a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee but there was no compliance as a result of which the assessment order was passed thereby assessed the income to the assessee at Rs. 1,93,21,750/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

The Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee be restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication as there was non-compliance by the assessee before the AO. The Ld. AR further submits that the cash deposit in the bank account in fact does not belongs to the assessee and the AO did not take any efforts to trace out the real beneficiaries. The Ld. A.R further submits that the assessee was a commission agent. The prayer of the Ld. A.R is that the appeal of the assessee be restored to the file of AO for fresh enquiries.

We have perused the order passed by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). It admits of no doubt that at the time of assessment there was non-compliance on behalf of the assessee for which AO assessed the income by calculating @ 5% of the deposit on the bank account. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. A.R submitted written submission and there was a contention that cash deposit in the bank account does not belong to assessee. It is a fact that the assessee was a commission agent and entirety of the deposit was transferred to different bank account through banking channels and a notice be issued to the bank and concerned beneficiary in whose account, moneys were transferred.

Keeping in view, the above facts and submission made by the assessee, we are inclined to restore the appeal to the file of AO to pass a afresh order after making proper enquiry to the contention made by the assessee.