PINKU KUMAR SAH,ARARIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), PURNIA

Pinku Kumar Sah ………….. Appellant Kursakanta, Araria, Bihar-854331. (PAN: EOTPS9513H) Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Purnia .............. Respondent Appearances: Appellant represented by: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, CA Respondent represented by: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 20.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 20.01.2025 ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

“1. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the condonation of delay on submission of 2nd appeal for 220 days consisting of 08 months and 09 days may kindly be granted for the sake of justice.

I.T.A. No.: 480/PAT/2022 Pinku Kumar Sah, AY : 2017-18

2. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, both the learned authorities below completed the assessment by making total additions of Rs.23,98,218/- in assessment U/s. 147 and confirming the same addition in appeal order U/s. 250 on same baseless fact and estimate of income. Therefore, both the orders are totally bad in law & fact and also the procedure of assessment.

3. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below erred in making arbitrary and baseless total addition of income Rs.16,30,809/- on account of non-existence sales of goods ignoring the closing stock of the goods as on 31.03.2018 Rs.11,32,768/- by arbitrarily considering the non-existent sale total of Rs. 11,31,849/- whereas the appellant case was selected for scrutiny for the cash deposits of Rs.12,25,000/- made in the bank account in demonetization period without any verification and other transactions made in the bank account with source thereof. Rather an arbitrary, baseless addition of Rs.16,30,809/- has been made which was also been confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Hence, this hypothetical addition of Rs.16,30,809/- is fit to be deleted.

5. For that, the appellant craves, leave to add, modify and amend any of the grounds of the appeal at the time of hearing.”

4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel in this respect has submitted that the assessee is a small trader and was not aware of the complexities of the income tax proceedings. That no notice in physical form was ever served by the Ld. CIT(A) on the assessee. The e-mail, if any, sent by the Ld. CIT(A) may have been sent on the e-mail ID of the authorized representative/counsel of the assessee, but he did not inform the assessee about this nor he represented the case of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Even the assessee was not aware of the passing of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It was only when the notice of demand was received by the assessee then the assessee came to know of Page 2 of 4

I.T.A. No.: 480/PAT/2022 Pinku Kumar Sah, AY : 2017-18 the passing of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, has submitted that the non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was not intentional rather due to the aforesaid facts and circumstances. He, therefore, has requested that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee may demonstrate his case before the Ld. CIT(A).

Order pronounced in the open Court.