LATE CHANDRA KISHORE MISHRA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR ALOK RANJAN,MOTIHARI V. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

ITA 287/PAT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the legal heir of Late Chandra Kishore Mishra against the orders of the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary contention was the addition of unexplained cash deposits and interest income to the assessee's income, which were treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had not filed his return of income for the relevant year, and subsequent notices from the AO were not complied with due to the assessee's health issues and eventual death. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, leading to the filing of this appeal before the ITAT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785079 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA ‘DB’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 287/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AHBPM9479R Appearances: Assessee represented by : None. Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 18-August-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 12-November-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the 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 2018-19 dated 26.06.2024. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 290 days. On behalf of the assessee, a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons being the assessee’s ill health and subsequent demise and the legal heir being unaware of the pending demand and proceedings has been filed. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the legal heir of the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 287/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that, the orders of the authorities below are without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. For that, the ex parte order passed by the learned CIT (A) u/s 250 is bad in law and fact. 3. For that, the notices of hearing of appeal could not be complied with by the appellant due to circumstances beyond his control, i.e., his prolonged illness and eventual death. 4. For that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders align with the principles of justice, and the authorities should not act in a vindictive or arbitrary manner with the intention of punishing the appellant. 5. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has not owned the bank account No. 1546526886 with the Central Bank of India in his name. The transactions in the said bank account did not pertain to the assessee. The said bank account pertains to PFAS, Jagdamba Medical Agency bearing PAN: AAFFJ6683F and all the transactions are duly accounted for in the books of the PFAS wherein the assessee is a partner. Thus the question of treating the deposits in the said bank account of Rs. 22398300/- as income of the assessee does not arise, therefore, the addition is liable to be deleted. 6. For that, the orders are erroneous and unjustified because the learned assessing officer and the CIT (A) did not cross-examine from the bank to which the bank account corresponds, the orders are incorrect and unreasonable. He is required to cross-examine the bank before making this dramatic move, and the bank's report may be recorded. 7. For that on the facts and circumstances, the learned assessing officer has erred in making an addition of Rs. 36394/- as interest income. 8. For that, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the additions in the total income without appreciating the facts of the case. The action of the assessing officer in making such an addition is wholly arbitrary, illegal based on surmises and conjecture and liable to be set aside. 9. For that, the appellant as the assessee craves leaves to add, alter, amend, substitute, withdraw or forego any of the ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of the hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the relevant AY 2018-19. An order Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 287/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan. u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2022. In response to the notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 14.04.2022. As per the information available with the Revenue, the assessee had made cash deposits of ₹2,23,98,300/- in the bank account maintained with the Central Bank of India during the year under consideration and had also earned interest of ₹36,294/-. Subsequently, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued on 15.11.2022 but the assessee did not comply with this notice. Another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued but the assessee again remained non-compliant. Further, show cause notices dated 20.01.2023 and 06.03.2023 were issued but neither the assessee attended nor furnished any submissions. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. 'AO') treated the cash deposits amounting to ₹2,23,98,300/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, in absence of any documents/submissions, the interest income of ₹36,294/- was also added to the total income of the assessee and the Ld. AO assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹2,28,88,544/- under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who issued three notices for hearing but none of them were complied with by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the material available on record, has cited several judicial pronouncements in the order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR brought it to our notice Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 287/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan. that before the Ld. AO, the required details called for were not filed and the assessment was made ex parte and also before the Ld. CIT(A), the required details were not filed and, therefore, the additions made were confirmed. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the appellate authority and requested that the same may be confirmed. 6. We have considered the submission made by the Ld. DR. However, a perusal of the statement of facts shows that the assessee failed to respond to the notices of hearing issued in the course of the faceless proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) as he was suffering from prolonged and severe health issues due to which he was unable to actively participate and to respond to the appellate proceeding pending before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee unfortunately passed away due to his ill health and he was unable to comply with the notices issued or to furnish the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which led to an ex parte assessment order and the appeal order on account of non- participation in the faceless appellate proceedings. It is also mentioned that the legal heir, being the present appellant, was unaware of the pending proceedings and came to know of the same after the death of the assessee and on realising the consequences, he applied for registration as a legal heir in the income tax records and was thereafter granted access to the related records of the deceased. It is stated that the appeal is being filed on the ground that the opportunity of being heard was denied to the deceased assessee due to circumstances beyond his control i.e. prolonged illness and eventual death. 7. Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the issue may be remanded before the Ld. AO to frame the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 287/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan. assessment of fresh so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Thus, after examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the Ld. AO for granting another opportunity of being heard to the assessee, consider the reply and thereafter pass a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 12.11.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 I.T.A. No.: 287/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan, Gopalpur, Motihari, East Champaran, Motihari, Bihar, 845401. 2. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Patna Benches, Patna. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "