DIPESH KUMAR (FORMERLY ANSHU KUMAR BARNWAL),GOPALGANJ V. ITO, WARD- 2 (4), SIWAN

ITA 352/PAT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dipesh Kumar, who runs a proprietary business and filed his income tax return declaring a total income of Rs.3,93,690 for the assessment year 2017-18. His case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits amounting to Rs.14,00,000 during the demonetization period in two bank accounts. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, adding them to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the merits of the case and remanded it back for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470787 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 250; 133(6); 69A

Judgement Text

"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.352/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dipesh Kumar (formerly Anshu Kumar Barnwal)..…..…………………....Appellant Prop: Uma Traders, Kateya, Gopalganj-841437 (Bihar) [PAN: ASDPB6519N] vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Siwan……….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 27, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.03.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee runs a proprietary business and filed his return of income on 26.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,93,690/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny on account of cash deposits of Rs.14,00,000/- during demonetization in his two bank accounts and subsequently notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to notices, the assessee filed written reply and copy of bank statement but no copy of books of account like cash book, ledger, stock register etc. have been furnished before the I.T.A. No.352/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dipesh Kumar 2 Assessing Officer in order to verify the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer also issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the bank in order to obtain various details relating in order to cash deposits made in demonetized currency during the period. Since there was no reply on the part of the assessee, accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated Rs.14,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A and added the same to the income of the assessee by assessing total income at Rs.17,93,690/-. 3. Dissatisfied, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the ld. CIT(A) simply upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, since the assessee could not furnish supporting documents to prove the fact that cash deposits were made from his sale proceeds. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. However, at the time of hearing, we find that no one appeared despite issuing consecutive notices from the Registry time to time informing about the hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to hear this matter with the assistance of ld. DR. The ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We, after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, find that the assessee could not properly represent his case before the ld. CIT(A). We also find that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by simply relying on the order of the Assessing Officer without going into the merits of the case, which is essential condition stipulated u/s 250(6) of the Act. We, therefore, considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play, remand back the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present his case and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the assessee to strictly comply I.T.A. No.352/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dipesh Kumar 3 with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and furnish all relevant documents to substantiate his claim. 7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 28th January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 28.01.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Dipesh Kumar (formerly Anshu Kumar Barnwal) 2. ITO, Ward-2(4), Siwan 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches "