SUBHAS SINHA,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), PATNA, PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 699/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 February 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the submission and the Ld. DR's submission. It was noted that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and the assessee's case was not properly represented. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the limitation period by 231 days. The assessee claimed ignorance of the passing of the order by the CIT(A). The appeal concerns an addition of Rs.4,16,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the AO for a fresh decision on merits.

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 29.02.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Ludhiana [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.

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice. However, an application for adjournment has been placed on file. Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 231 days. However, it has been pleaded that the assessee was not aware of the passing of the order of Ld. CIT(A). After going through the records, considering the above submission and after hearing the Ld. DR, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits.

3.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.4,16,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. A perusal of the impugned assessment order as well as the impugned order of I.T.A. No.: 699/PAT/2024 Subhas Sinha, AY : 2017-18 the Ld. CIT(A) would reveal that both the orders of the lower authorities are ex parte of the assessee. The case of the assessee has not been properly represented before the lower authorities. The amount of deposit/addition is very small and in my view, the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer and to explain the source of deposit. In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is 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.

4.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →