AMRESH KUMAR,SAMASTIPUR V. ITO WARD-3(3), SAMASTIPUR

ITA 35/PAT/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Amresh Kumar, the appellant, who contested an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed an addition of 32,00,000 to his income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was made due to the assessee's failure to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of a transaction concerning an unexplained loan. Initially, the assessee's appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with notices sent via email, which the assessee claimed were not seen or were possibly in the spam folder. The ITAT, considering the circumstances and the interests of justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present his case.

• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Patna
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANAB ADAK
• Assessee Lawyers: A.K. RASTOGI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 35/PAT/2026 Assessment Year : 2023-2024 Amresh Kumar, Moolchand Road, Samastipur, Bihar - 848101 [PAN: AYIPK9387N] Vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Samastipur APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT Date of hearing : 23.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2026 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 25.11.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1082988783(1) challenging the exparte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 35/PAT/2026 Amresh Kumar 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.07.2023 declaring total income of ₹ 8,69,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished reply which was considered by the Assessing Officer. After considering the entire submission, the Assessing Officer made addition under Section 68 of the Act at ₹ 32,00,000/- holding that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of transaction in respect of unexplained loan to the tune of ₹ 32,00,000/- and made addition under Section 68 of the Act and income was assessed at ₹ 40,69,500/- and completed the assessment on 10.03.2025 under Section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) sent notice email provided by the assessee in Form No. 35 but all notices were remained uncomplied. Accordingly, he confirmed the order of Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. 5. The Ld. Counsel submitted that during the course of first appellate proceedings, the notices sent on the email provided could not be seen Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 35/PAT/2026 Amresh Kumar and submitted that either it may be settled in the spam folder or deleted. The intention of the assessee was not to disregard the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and he undertook and submitted that one more chance may be granted to the assessee and submitted that email given in Form No. 36 is correct email ID and submitted that if the notices are sent in these two emails, the assessee will respond. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has not serious objection. 7. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material available on record and the orders of authorities below. I noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to satisfy the necessary ingredients of section 68 of the Act, therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition and during the first appellate proceedings, the notices sent by the Ld. CIT(A) on the email provided by the assessee, the assessee did not respond any of the notices. Considering the interests of justice and facts of the case, I am directing to the Ld. CIT(A) to send notice on the email address given in Form No. 36 is [e-mail]/ [e-mail] and decide the issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with cogent documents in support of his claim and frequently has to check the email ID noted (supra) and not seek unnecessary Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 35/PAT/2026 Amresh Kumar adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 25.03.2026 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "