JOSEPH JOSE,PATNA V. DC/AC, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

ITA 197/PAT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Joseph Jose, an individual who derived income from various sources, including house property and business, for the assessment year 2017-18. His income tax return declared a total income of Rs.16,51,470. However, due to an abnormal increase in cash deposits during the demonetization period compared to the pre-demonetization period, his case was selected for complete scrutiny. The Assessing Officer, due to non-compliance with notices, added Rs.35,04,500 as unexplained income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, raising his total assessed income to Rs.60,10,073. The CIT(A) dismissed his appeal due to non-compliance, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte without merit consideration, contrary to legal provisions, and thus remanded the case for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714233 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1)

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.197/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Joseph Jose……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant House of Sudhir Kr. Singh, Opposite Loyala High School, P.O Sadaqat, Ashram Kurji Patna, Bihar-800010. [PAN: AJLPJ6722E] vs. DC/AC, Cir-4, Patna……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : August 07, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT, Appeal ADDL/JCIT(A)-10, Delhi [\"CIT(A)\"] for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case ate that the assessee is an individual and derived his income from house property, business and other sources for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.16,51,470/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS showing reason for abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetisation period. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act asking for various details. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.197/Pat/2025 Joseph Jose 2 Due to non-compliance of the notices sent to the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.35,04,500/- which was deposited during the demonetization period u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained source by assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.60,10,073/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non-compliance by simply sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the assessee did not turn up before this Bench. Although, Registry has issued notice to the assessee on the address provided in Form No.36. As there is no one turned up, we cannot keep this appeal pending for inordinate period, we, therefore, with the assistance of the ld. DR heard this matter. 5. The ld. DR stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and it did not turn up before the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) and even before this Bench, therefore, the appeal needs to be dismissed. 6. We, after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, find that although the assessee did not turn up before the authorities below, however, the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex parte without going into the merits of the case by simply dismissing the appeal of the assessee, which is contract to the provisions of law. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, feel it necessary to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the appeal on merits of the case. We direct the assessee to comply all notices during the remand proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.197/Pat/2025 Joseph Jose 3 7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 7th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 07.08.2025. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "