SANTOSH KUMAR,SITAMARHI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), SITAMARHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 206/PAT/2023Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex parte. The assessee's claim was that the deposits were from cash sales related to their mobile recharge distribution business. Considering the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming an addition of Rs. 23,80,360/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. The appeal was time-barred by 49 days, but the delay was condoned. The assessee's representative was absent, but the case was decided based on records and the DR's arguments.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained cash deposits, given the ex parte nature of previous orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA “SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA

Before: SRI SANJAY GARG

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR

order : 12.02.2025 ORDER The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.02.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

This appeal of the assessee is time barred by 49 days. However, a condonation of delay petition has been placed in file. After considering the averments made in the application and considering the shortness of delay, I condone the delay in filing the appeal. No one is present on behalf of the assessee. However, after going through the records and after hearing the Ld. DR, I proceed to decide the appeal.

3.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.23,80,360/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee.

1.

I.T.A. No.: 206/PAT/2023 Santosh Kumar, AY : 2017-18 4. At the outset, the ld. DR has brought to my attention that the impugned assessment order as well as the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex parte orders. The plea of the assessee in this case is that the aforesaid cash deposits were out of cash sales of the assessee as the assessee is engaged in the activity of mobile recharge distributor. In my view, in this case, the interests of justice demand that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer and explain the sources of deposits. In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. Matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case.

5.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →