MOHAMMAD KASIF RAJA,MILIK TOLA, KHOKSA, BAISI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PURNEA, PURNEA

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a CSP operator and had filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 showing total income of ₹49,587/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') and accordingly, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that the assessee had deposited a sum of ₹3,46,000/- in his bank account during the demonetization period, out of which a sum of ₹2,55,000/- was in the OD account and ₹91,000/- in the savings bank account. The Ld. AO ITA No.: 322/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Kasif Raja. further noted that the assessee made no submission regarding the source of cash deposit of ₹91,000/- and accordingly, he added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money and further ₹4,18,613/- was also added for misreporting of proper income and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹5,59,200/- u/s 144 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 28.03.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “5.3 DECISION:- The Statement of Facts, Grounds of appeal and the material on record have been considered. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not filed any written submission. In absence of the written submission and evidence, it remained to be unexplained as to how the AO's order is erroneous. If the appellant claims that he is eligible for any claim he should have furnished supporting documents. Making claim in the grounds of appeal that the assessment made by the A.O. was bad in law does not made the assessment invalid unless the appellant proves so with support of evidence, legal citation and showing how such case laws is applicable in the appellant's case. The appellant has failed to do so in spite of issuing as many 6 notices. Further on merit the appellant claimed in the statement of facts that the amounts of cash deposits during period of demonetization is his previous year Income and savings and also he is a CSP holder having income from Commission from Bank. No evidence on that count were produced during the appellate proceeding. Also, it is pertinent to note here that before the A.O. failed to produce evidence for cash deposits. Therefore, in absence of evidence the claim made by the appellant cannot be accepted on its face value. The appellate proceedings are first line of remedy to those who think that the injustice has been done by the AO. However, the appellant failed to avail the same by non-complying. From the assessment order, it is evident that there was non-compliance of notices before the AO as well and therefore, the AO had to pass the order. During the appellate proceedings also, the appellant has not availed of the opportunities given. Therefore, it is assumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his own appeal. Moreover, the appellant failed to bring on records any facts or documents which can explain how the order of the AO is erroneous. The appellant has challenged the addition made of Rs.5,09,613/- without submitting sufficient evidences or counter arguments in support of its claims. ITA No.: 322/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Kasif Raja. Mere claiming that the AO erred in making the additions does not give an edge to the appellant. Further, during appellate proceedings, no response received from the appellant to substantiate its claim in support of grounds of appeal though enough opportunities of being heard were given to it, as tabulated in Para 4 above. Hence, keeping in view all the stated facts and discussions and in the absence of any corroborative evidence or material/submission on records, I find no reason in altering the additions made by the AO. In view of this, the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.

4 In the case of Anil Goel Vs CIT, [2008] 306 ITR 212 (Punjab & Haryana), the Hon'ble High Court held as under:

It is thus obvious on the plain language of section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submissions by appearing in person or through authorised representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen heahngs, no one had put in appearance nor any justifiable reason for adjournment was given.

The Tribunal also found that non-recording of reasons in support of order passed by CIT(A) would not amount to committing any illegality because the CIT(A) has adopted the reasoning advanced by the Assessing Officer and has upheld his order. The judgment of this Court, in the case of Popular Engineehng Co. v. ITAT [2001] 248 ITR 577, has been rightly relied upon wherein it has been observed that elaborate reasons need not be recorded by the CIT(A) as has been done by the Assessing Officer. The reasons are required to be clear and explicit indicating that the authority has considered the issue in controversy. If the appellate/revisional authority has to affirm such an order it is not required to give separate reasons which may be required in case the order is to be reversed by the appellate/revisional authority."

5 Accordingly, I agree with the reasons given by the AO and confirm the addition made by the AO. The grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.

In the result, the appellant’s appeal is dismissed.”

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.: 322/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Kasif Raja.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book containing the CSP agreement, certificate of Indian Institute of Banking and Finance, dated 12/01/2016 and other details in support of the claim that the cash deposits were from earlier savings and CSP related banking transactions which could not be treated as the assessee’s income. It was further submitted that both before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) proper representation was not made and the orders were made ex parte. It was requested that another opportunity may be provided to the assessee to explain the source of deposits in the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.: 322/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Kasif Raja.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th January, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 29.01.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) ITA No.: 322/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Kasif Raja. Copy of the order forwarded to:

Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru.

CIT-

CIT(DR), Patna Benches, Patna.

Guard File. //// By order