M/S OM SAI MEDICAL AGENCY,BHAGALPUR vs. CIT, BHAGALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 678/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 May 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. It noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte due to non-response from the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs.1,02,22,445/- to the assessee's income as unexplained cash deposit. The assessee did not respond to multiple notices from the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), leading to ex parte orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex parte due to non-response from the assessee should be set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH PATNA

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Hearing: 05.05.2025Pronounced: 21.05.2025

Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 O R D E R

Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member :

1.

This appeal arises from the order passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 21.08.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

2.

In this case there is a delay of 38 days. An application has been filed requesting condonation. Since the reasons given are extensive, we merely mention in brief that the business of the assessee had seized and thus there was no proper attention to tax matters and hence, notices could not be responded to promptly. Considering the reasons given on the condonation of delay petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Om Sai Medical Agency, AY: 2018-19, 3. In this case, the Assessing Officer has recorded at pages 1 and 2 of his order that several notices issued to the assessee have only resulted in partial response, at best. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.1,02,22,445/- representing cash deposit with UCO Bank Bhagalpur, which was treated as unexplained and added u/s. 69A of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where it is seen that as per detailed factual recording on page 4 of the impugned order, that five notices sent to him for fixing the dates of hearing were not responded to. On the last date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the appeal with the help of Ld. DR.

5.

The Ld. DR supported both the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has approached the ITAT and as per ground no. 3 it has been averred that the notices calling for details were never served on the assessee. Before us, the ld. AR pleaded for an opportunity to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the matter may be remanded back to him.

7.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the impugned order.

8.

We have carefully considered the submission of Ld. DR and also gone through the records. We find that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and we feel that in the interest of substantive justice, the assessee deserves another chance to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A). To this extent, we set aside the impugned order and remand the same to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to avail the opportunity to be provided by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing in the matter.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →