BIRJU KUMAR,VAISHALI V. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

ITA 333/PAT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Birju Kumar, an individual engaged in the jewelry and mobile business, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had confirmed the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Vaishali. The AO had assessed Birju Kumar's income for the assessment year 2017-18 at Rs 55,04,960, significantly higher than the returned income of Rs 5,24,260, due to unexplained cash deposits of Rs 49,80,700 during the demonetization period. The NFAC dismissed Birju Kumar's appeal due to non-compliance and lack of evidence to substantiate the source of the deposits. The ITAT, considering the circumstances and the potential evidence of business receipts, decided to remand the case back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788800 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 144; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 333/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Birju Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Vaishali (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABTM7238F Appearances: Assessee represented by : Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate Department represented by : Shri Himanshu Kumar, CIT Date of concluding the hearing : 17-September-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 27-November-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 25.07.2024. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation in filing the appeal by 294 days. However, the assessee has filed an affidavit before the ITAT dated 15th July, 2025 requested for condonation of delay of 294 days by mentioning that he has been struggling with health issues and was advised complete bed rest by the attending physician. He has also stated in the affidavit that he was unable to attend to his business and legal responsibilities, which Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.: 333/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Birju Kumar includes the filing of appeal within time line. He has also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was purely unintentional and occurred due to circumstances beyond his control as he was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and when he came to know about the same, he approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to which there is a delay of 294 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay of 294 days and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, vide order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ('the Act), dated 25-07- 2024. 2. For that the NFAC erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Vaishali, ('the Ld. AO’), assessing the appellant under section 144 of the Act, vide order dated 27-12-2019 at an income of Rs 55,04,960/- against the returned income of Rs. 5,24,260/-, which is wrong, Illegal and unjustified. 3. For that the learned NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs 49,80,700/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposited in the bank account under section 68 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 4. For that the learned NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in not resorting to the newly inserted section 251(1)(a) of the Act by not remanding back the matter to the assessing officer, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.: 333/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Birju Kumar 5. For that the learned NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the AO in arbitrarily passing ex-party order without allowing proper opportunity of being heard, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. That the whole order passed by the NFAC is bad in facts and law. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or vary the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who derives income from jewellery and mobile business in the name of M/s. Rinki Alankar Jewellers and M/s. Rinki Enterprises and that filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year showing total income of ₹ 5,24,260/-, which was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Statutory notices were issued but as there was no compliance to the notices issued, the total amount of cash of ₹ 49,80,700/- deposited during demonetization period was treated as unexplained cash credit by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee and was subjected to tax @ 60% under section 115BBE of the Act and the total income was assessed at ₹ 55,04,960/-. 6. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who issued four notices for hearing during the period from 24.02.2021 to 17.07.2024 and except for the notice issued on 16.05.2024 in which 15 days adjournment was sought by the assessee, no compliance was made. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not accept the explanation in the statement of facts that deposits were out of business transactions and from debtors’ collection in the normal course of business. The assessee had failed to furnish any documentary evidence during the appellate proceedings despite various notices issued and had also failed to discharge the onus of providing Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No.: 333/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Birju Kumar the nature and source of cash deposits during the demonetization period. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, ld. A.R. submitted that there was delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee as filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The ld. A.R. submitted that the deposit of ₹ 49,80,700/- made during the demonetization period in the Bank account had been added to the total income by the ld. Assessing Officer and the income has been assessed under section 144 of the Act. Before the ld. CIT(Appeals) also, the assessee failed to furnish the documents on account of lack of communication. Although the ld. CIT(A) had the power to remand the matter to the AO in view of the newly inserted amendment of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, however, the addition was confirmed. The ld. AO also did not allow adequate opportunity and the assessee has the required evidence for explaining the source of deposit. He requested that another opportunity may be provided to the assessee to explain the source of deposits. 9. The ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and pleaded that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed as no compliance was made either before the ld. Assessing Officer or even before the ld. CIT(A). 10. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties. Since the assessee claimed that he has sufficient evidence in the form of cash book and the deposits made were out of business receipts, the Bench was of the view that the matter may be remanded to the ld. AO Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No.: 333/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Birju Kumar by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee for presenting his case before the AO. Accordingly, the order of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the issue is remanded to the Ld. AO to grant one more opportunity to the assessee and to reframe the assessment de novo. The assessee shall produce cash book, which he has claimed to have maintained and the Ld. AO shall consider the submission made and thereafter, pass the assessment order de novo in accordance with law. Thus, all the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 27.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No.: 333/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Birju Kumar Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Birju Kumar, S/o. Suresh Prasad Gup[ta, Gudri Road, Shukla Complex, Hajipur, Vaishali-844101, Bihar 2. ITO, Ward-1(3), Vaishali, Hajipur Income Tax Office, Hajipur, Patna-803101, Bihar 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Laha Printed from counselvise.com "