RAJESH KUMAR SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (1), MUZAFFARPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.165/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Sah.………….………………. …………………....Appellant C/o Harilal Prasad Navanagar, Nijamat, Karnowl, Sahebgunj, Muzaffarpur-843125. Bihar.. [PAN: EFWPK4178C] vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Muzaffarpur…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri G. P. Tulsiyan, FCA appeared on behalf of the appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, DR appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 06, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the Assessment Year 2018–19. Consequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. However, even in response to the notice under section 148, the assessee failed to file the return of income. During the reassessment proceedings, on verification of bank accounts, the Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits aggregating to ₹3,26,54,960, which were treated as unexplained money under section

I.T.A. No.165/Pat/2025 Rajesh Kumar Sah 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee and the assessing Officer completed the assessment accordingly. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that assessee and his brother Shri Vijay Prasad were engaged in the business of Banking Correspondence with IDFC Bank Limited. The license for banking correspondence was issued only in the name of his elder brother, Shri Vijay Prasad and the bank account standing in the name of Shri Vijay Prasad, as well as the assessee’s bank account, were used for operational convenience in the said business. The various amounts deposited in the brother’s account were subsequently transferred to the assessee’s account and withdrawn for making payments to various account holders in the course of banking correspondence activities. 4. It was submitted that the deposits represented business transactions carried out on behalf of IDFC Bank Limited and not unexplained money of the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition, without examining the above factual contentions in detail. 5. Dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. At the time of the hearing the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the authorities below failed to examine the nature of banking correspondence business. Moreover, the issue of license being in the name of the assessee’s brother and routing of funds between accounts was not verified. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter requires fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

I.T.A. No.165/Pat/2025 Rajesh Kumar Sah 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the assessee admittedly did not file return of income. However, the specific contention that the impugned transactions relate to banking correspondence activities carried out under a license issued in the name of the assessee’s brother has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. Since the issue involves factual verification of business arrangements, licensing, and flow of funds, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh examination. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the assessee’s contention regarding banking correspondence business with IDFC Bank Limited and verify the license issued in the name of Shri Vijay Prasad by examine bank statements, fund flow, and supporting documents and pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and substantiate his claim by filing all relevant supporting documents. Failure to do so shall entitle the Assessing Officer to decide the matter in accordance with law based on material available on record. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 9th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member Dated: 09.01.2026.

I.T.A. No.165/Pat/2025 Rajesh Kumar Sah RS

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches