JITENDRA KUMAR RAY,LALGANJ, HAJIPUR V. ITO WARD 1(3) VAISHALI, HAJIPUR

ITA 344/PAT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jitendra Kumar Ray against the order of the CIT(A), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,29,73,990 as unexplained investment under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the cash deposits in question, amounting to Rs. 2,27,33,985, were made into his bank account during the demonetisation period and belonged to his employer, Ranjan Kumar, not to him personally. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had reopened the case under Section 147 and issued notices under Sections 148 and 143(2), leading to the assessment of the unexplained investment. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's decision after the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence despite multiple opportunities. The tribunal, considering the circumstances and the lack of adjudication on merits by the CIT(A), decided to remit the case back for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830716 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji, Well Trader Vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANAB ADAK
• Assessee Lawyers: AMAR KRITI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.344/PAT/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jitendra Kumar Ray, Jalalpur Via Lalganj, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar- 844121, Lalganj [PAN: ATJPR2885G] Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Vaishali APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. Amar Kriti, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT Date of hearing : 15.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 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 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 27.05.2024, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065139453(1) on the following grounds: “1. For that the Grounds of Appeal hereto are without prejudice to one another. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 344/Pat/2025 Jitendra Kumar Ray 2) For that the Ld. A.O. is not justified in reopening the case as per provisions of section 147 and accordingly complete the assessment proceedings under section 147 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without sanction of law. 3) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. A.O. assessed the appellant arbitrarily, hurriedly and without application of mind, which is against the principal of natural justice. 4) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case Id. CIT (A) is not justified in not giving proper time to substantiate its claim which is violative of principal of natural justice. 5.) For that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,29,73,990/- under cash deposit unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s.115BBE of I. T. Act' 1961. which is arbitrary and unjustified. 6) For that the entire assessment order is bad both in law and facts of the case. 7) For that the demand made on account of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D is unsustainable in law being mechanical and without the sanction of law. 8) For that the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1) (c) & 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961 is arbitrary, unjustified, void, ab-initio and bad in laws. 9) For That the appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. 2. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delay by 256 days. In this regard, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2026 stating the reasons for not filing appeal within the due date which is as under: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2015-16 on the 27-05-2024. Through this appeal should have been filed on or before 27/07/2024. That I, due to awareness of technilities of Income tax provisions I could not open the e-mail and I.T. Portal. As and when I saw my portal thereafter, I am filing my appeal. Under the abovementioned facts and circumstances your goodself is requested to condone the said delay and to hear the appeal on merits. What are stated above are true to best of my information and belief. We therefore pray that delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and it should be treated as filed within the allowed time. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 344/Pat/2025 Jitendra Kumar Ray AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, I SHALL EVER PRAY.” 3. Considering the facts of the delay in filing of appeal and reasons given therein, we condoned the delay relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji, (1987) 167 ITR 171 (SC), we also rely on the judgment of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Well Trader Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1264/Bang/2024 for A.Y. 2020-21 in which various other judgments have been referred and it has been held that the assessee had a reasonable cause, therefore, we respectfully following the above judgment condone the delay in filling the appeal and taking for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during financial year 2014-15 the assessee had deposited cash amounting to ₹ 2,27,33,985/- in his bank account and no return of income was filed, therefore, the case was reopened after completing entire procedures for reopening u/s147 and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2021 to file return of income. In response to notice under Section 148 of the Act the assessee filed return of income on 06.08.2021. Accordingly, notice under Section 143(2) dated 30.12.2021 was issued to the assessee Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee to furnish relevant details explanation but the assessee did not respond to the notice issued under Section 142(1) dated 26.11.2021. Further, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee. In response to the assessee filed submission on 21.12.2021 the broadly contending as follows: “The assessee finally uploaded submissions on 21.12.2021 broadly contending as follows:- He was employed with a wine shop owner called Ranjan Kumar who entrusted the running of wine shop including making payments. The employer opened a bank account in the name of the assessee and disclosed this account in his financial statements while filing ITR. Therefore, since the bank account is related to Ranjan Kumar proceedings u/s 148 be dropped Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 344/Pat/2025 Jitendra Kumar Ray 5. The assessee furnishes bank statement which was incomplete and not further information was furnished therefore, the source of cash deposits were remained unexplained and relying on various judgments, the Assessing Officer made the aforesaid cash deposits as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and show cause notice was also issued to the assessee but in reply of the show cause notice the assessee contended once again whatever the submission made earlier. Then for the Assessing Officer made the entire cash deposits under Section 69 of the Act at unexplained investment assessed income at ₹ 2,29,73,985/-. 6. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Learned. CIT(A). during the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) provided seven opportunities to the assessee but the assessee did not respond any of the opportunities provided to the assessee. Therefore, he upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 7. The Ld. AR reiterated the submission made before the lower authorities before the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee was an employee and has deposited his cash into bank account of the assessee. The assessee has no any business activity the money belongs to the employer and he requested that one more chance given to the assessee to prove sufficient documents with the money does not belong to the assessee. The Ld. counsel did not argue on legal issue regarding reopening of the case. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of authorities below and submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings various opportunities were granted to the assessee. However, the assessee furnished very vague reply which is not sufficient to decide the issue before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) provided various opportunities but he did not furnish any submissions in response to various opportunities and he objected for being one more chance to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 344/Pat/2025 Jitendra Kumar Ray 9. Considering the rival and perusing the entire material available on record and orders of authorities below. It has been observed that during demonetisation period, the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,27,33,985/- in his bank account and as per the submission made by the Ld. counsel that the amount does not belong to the assessee, the assessee is an employee and the employer has used his bank account for depositing the cash. The Ld. CIT(A) has provided various opportunities to the assessee therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is an ex- parte order and there is no adjudication on merits of the case. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and in the interests of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with cogent documents in support of his claim and not to seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 21.01.2026 AK, Sr. P.S. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 344/Pat/2025 Jitendra Kumar Ray 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 "