CHINMASTIKA SIDHARTHA(JV),PATNA V. CIT(A), PATNA

ITA 657/PAT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Chinmastika Sidhartha (JV), a joint venture engaged in contract work, which appealed against the order of the Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary contention was the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer, who estimated the net profit of the JV at 6% of the total contract receipts due to non-production of relevant details and documents. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's request for a fresh examination of the documents and evidence, leading to the decision to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771859 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice; TDS

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 657/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Chinmastika Sidhartha (JV) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 657/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Chinmastika Sidhartha (JV),……...….………Appellant A/51, Vijay Shree Jagat Apartment, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [PAN:AABAC6729Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-2(3), Siwan Appearances by: Shri D.V. Pathy, Sr. Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 23, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida dated 30th August 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2015-16. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 657/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Chinmastika Sidhartha (JV) 2 2. The appeal is time barred by 22 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, Shri Praveen Prakash, Authorized Signatory of the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 22 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to upgradation of e-filing portal of ITAT and in a state of confusion for the receipt of appeal submission not generated and immediately thereafter the holidays for Deepawali, Chitragupt Puja, Chatth Puja and other festivals during which the Advocate was engaged in the observance of these festivals. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 22 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from contract work. The appellant-assessee is a joint venture of Chinamastika Construction and Developers Pvt. Limited (mentioned as 1st party) and Siddharth Construction & Trading Pvt. Ltd. (mentioned as 2nd party) The assessee filed its return of income on 19.01.2016 showing total income of Rs. NIL. The case was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ld. Assessing Officer on 29.07.2016 and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice, ld. Advocate on behalf of assessee produced details and documents with written submission. On perusal of the return of income, it is seen that the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 657/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Chinmastika Sidhartha (JV) 3 assessee has received an amount of Rs.2,36,37,299/- by way of contract receipt and from the audit report of AOP, it is seen that the assessee had paid the amount of Rs.2,30,93,711/- to the members of AOP and amount of TDS on the aforesaid amount was Rs.5,43,658/-. The total amount of payment aggregated to Rs.2,36,37,299/-. In the audit report of the assessee AOP in Form No. 3CB in Column 9, the profit-sharing ratio of two persons have been shown as 97% and 3%. In the audit report vide clause 23, the contract payment to both the members has been shown as Rs.2,24,00,832/- (Rs.2,29,28,180/- minus TDS Rs.5,27,348/-) to first party and Rs.6,92,809/- (Rs.7,09,119/- minus TDS Rs.16,310/-) to second party. As the assessee failed to produce the relevant details and documents in support of the books of account of JV, therefore, there was no alternative in the hands of ld. Assessing Officer but to reject the books of account of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. Ld. Assessing Officer estimated the net profit of JV @ 6% of the total contract, which comes to Rs.14,17,262/- and added to the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex- parte without going into the merit of the case. Ld. Counsel therefore, pleaded to set aside the order of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). 6. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 657/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Chinmastika Sidhartha (JV) 4 assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well as to produce the relevant supporting documents in support of its claim. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). 7. I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the assessee was not in a position to file some of the evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer. But now he has filed evidences as additional evidence before me and requested to remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh and to examine these documents. The ld. Departmental Representative did not raise any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to decide it afresh. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. Assessing Officer failing which the Ld. Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 657/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Chinmastika Sidhartha (JV) 5 on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/08/2025. Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 25th day of August, 2025 Copies to :(1) Chinmastika Sidhartha (JV), A/51, Vijay Shree Jagat Apartment, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Siwan (3) Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Noida; (4) CIT - ; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S. Printed from counselvise.com "