AMIT KUMAR,BEGUSARAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of Ld. DR. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 showing total income of ₹10,16,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act to which the assessee responded. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that the assessee had received commission of ₹1,86,520/- from M/s. Trycon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. However, from the profit and loss account submitted by the assessee, it was seen that this commission receipt had not been taken into account on the credit side in the profit and loss account. Therefore, the Ld. AO added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. AO further noted that the assessee had been credited an amount of ₹ 1,93,898/- as interest income. However, from the profit and loss ITA No.: 410/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Amit Kumar. account, it was seen that the interest income of ₹28,584/- only had been taken into account as interest. Hence, the difference of interest income of ₹1,65,314/- was also added to the total income of the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Ld. AO also added a sum of ₹3,61,07,900/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act to the total income of the assessing and assessed the total income at ₹3,74,76,426/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has reproduced the assessment order, considered the submissions made by the assessee and has held as under and partly allowed the appeal: “I have gone through the factual matrix of the case and perused the assessment order, grounds of appeal and other submissions of the appellant. During assessment the AO had made additions to the income of the appellant on three accounts. The issues relating to them are discussed and decided as below:

1 The first addition is on account of commission income not shown Rs. 1,86,820/-, The appellant has stated that it is not included in the taxable income in the returns due to mistake of accountant. He has accepted it.

2 The second addition is on account of interest on FDR Rs. 1,93,898/-. The appellant has stated that this income has been duly shown in the computation of income. On verification this has been found to be true. Hence this addition is deleted and the appellant gets relief. (Relief Rs. 1,93,898/-)

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 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). The assessee did not file any evidence before the Ld. AO and before the Ld. CIT(A) also there was no proper representation. The deposits were in the current account and the same were partly treated as business receipts by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the balance amount of ITA No.: 410/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Amit Kumar. ₹72,00,000/- has been treated as unexplained out of the total addition of ₹3,61,07,900/- made by the Ld. AO. It is mentioned in the Grounds of appeal that the Ld. CIT(A) did not take any cognizance of the submission filed by the assessee. The bank account has regular cash deposits and there is no justification, other than the computation on the basis of sales and commission income and the total deposits in the bank account, for sustaining part of the addition. This does not appear to be justified as the assessee ought to have been confronted with the same by providing proper opportunity of being heard or after considering the submission which the assessee claims to have filed before the appellate authority. The Bench was of the view that in the interest of justice and fair play, one more opportunity needs to be provided to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank account, a part of which has been treated as unexplained by the Ld. CIT(A) while the major part has been treated as business receipts. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. 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 and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.: 410/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Amit Kumar.

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.: 410/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Amit Kumar. Copy of the order forwarded to:

CIT(A)-

CIT-

CIT(DR), Patna Benches, Patna.

Guard File. //// By order