MITHILESH KUMAR CHOUBEY,PATNA V. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR2,PAT, PATNA

ITA 156/PAT/2025

AI Insights

Mithilesh Kumar Choubey appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 4,00,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2021-22. This addition was part of a larger sum of Rs. 5,64,700, which was also added to the income of his brother, Rakesh Kumar Chaubey, following a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the same cash was added to both the assessee's and his brother's income, leading to a double addition, which is against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for verification and appropriate action based on the findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785076 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 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: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

" Page | 1 ITA No.: 156/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 MITHILESH KUMAR CHOUBEY. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA ‘DB’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 156/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mithilesh Kumar Choubey Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Cen Cir-2, Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ABHPC6092J Appearances: Assessee represented by : None. Department represented by : Rajat Datta, CIT(DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 17-September-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)- 3, Patna [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 2021-22 dated 05.03.2024. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 156 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that he was unaware of the order passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) and being a non-tech-savvy person and not well-versed with accessing the income tax portal and as also he did not receive any hard copy of the appellate order, hence the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.: 156/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 MITHILESH KUMAR CHOUBEY. unintentional delay occurred in filing the appeal and has requested that the same may be condoned. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that 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. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the order passed by The Ld. AO is illegal and invalid and against the law as the addition is unsustainable based on the facts of the case. 2. For that the appellant submits this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) who confirmed the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- out of the addition of Rs.5,64,700/-. 3. For that the CIT(A) erred in limiting the addition to Rs.4,00,000/- because of the fact that the same addition of Rs.5,64,700/- was already made in the hands of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaubey, PAN ABWPC7431Q (my brother who is a party to the search and seizure operation) and the assessment has already been completed with the addition of Rs.5,64,700/- vide assessment order u/s 143(3) of The Act dated 31.03.2022. This has lead to double addition of the same figure which is illegal and against the principle of natural justice. 4. For that the sustenance of additions of Rs.4,00,000/- is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. For that the whole order passed by The Ld. AO is invalid and shall be set aside because he had no jurisdiction to pass the order. 6. For that other grounds if any shall be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in deriving income under the head profits and gains from business and profession. The assessee had e-filed the original return of income on 12.03.2022 vide acknowledgement no. 332871410120322 showing income as ₹6,56,250/- and had claimed exempt income of Rs 88,572/-. The case was selected under scrutiny after a search and Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.: 156/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 MITHILESH KUMAR CHOUBEY. seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was carried out on 06/10/2020. Subsequently, the assessment order was passed by the Ld AO on 30.03.2022 by making an addition of ₹5,64,700.00 on account of cash found during the course of the search and seizure operation. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who, vide the impugned order, partly allowed the appeal. The assessee claims to have submitted detailed explanation and documentary evidence and further argued that the addition had been made twice in 2 separate files. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition on account of cash found to Rs.4,00,000/- and allowed part relief. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the addition has been made twice, once in the hands of the brother of the assessee and the second time in the hands of the assessee. He requested that the matter may be verified for which the issue may be remanded to the Ld. AO. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the appellate authority and requested that the same may be confirmed. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the facts of the case, the submission made and the documents filed. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed partial relief by giving his findings as under: “Appellate finding: There is no dispute on the fact that the cash amounting to Rs. 6,80,000/- was found from the bedroom of the appellant. The appellant could not explain the source of the cash found before the AO which resulted in the addition of Rs. 5,64,700/- to the income of the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No.: 156/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 MITHILESH KUMAR CHOUBEY. Ld. AR has submitted that the appellant had declared his total income during the year from the business and profession as Rs. 6,56,250/- on which the tax of Rs. 50,605/- was paid. The aforesaid profit was generated from the sale of paddy, wheat, maize and similar agricultural produce amounting to Rs. 23,50,000/-. The aforesaid income involves cash. Considering the source of income already declared by the appellant, the addition on account of cash found is restricted to Rs. 400000/- and the appellant gets a relief of Rs. 164700/-. These grounds are thus partly allowed. Further, the Ld. AR has also submitted that the income of the appellant has been taken by the AO as Rs. 49,49,590/-. However, the total income declared by the appellant in his ITR was just Rs. 6,56,250/-. The Ld. AR has also submitted the copy of the ITR of the appellant filed for the year. It is clear from the ITR that the appellant has shown the total income as Rs. 6,56,250/-. The AO is directed to make amendments accordingly.” 7. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the facts of the case, the submission made and the documents filed. The Ld. AR contended that there has been double addition in respect of the cash found and instead of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing partial relief, the entire addition ought to have been deleted. It was stated that the same addition of Rs.5,64,700/- was already made in the hands of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaubey, PAN ABWPC7431Q, the brother of the assessee whose premises were also subjected to search and seizure action and the assessment has already been completed with the addition of Rs.5,64,700/- vide assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2022 in his case. Consequently, this has led to double addition of the same figure which is illegal and against the principle of natural justice. The Ld. DR, on the other hand had no objection if the issue were to be set aside for verification before the Assessing Officer. 8. The Bench was of the view after considering the submission of both the parties that for the same cash found and seized, addition cannot be made in the hands of two assessees. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the issue is remanded to the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No.: 156/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 MITHILESH KUMAR CHOUBEY. Ld. AO for verification on the basis of evidence to be filed by the assessee, viz. the assessment order and the appellate order in the case of the brother of the assessee and if the addition has been accepted by the brother, then the Ld. AO is directed to delete the addition partially sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee, else the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard shall stand confirmed. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Ground No. 5 is dismissed as no argument was raised regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Ld. AO nor this issue appears to have been raised within the period specified under the Act before the Assessing Officer. 10. Ground No. 6 is general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication 11. 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 ITA No.: 156/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 MITHILESH KUMAR CHOUBEY. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Mithilesh Kumar Choubey, Ramesh Printing Works Lane Mithapur Khaul Road, Patna, Bihar, 800001. 2. DCIT/ACIT, Cen Cir-2, Patna. 3. CIT(A)-3, Patna. 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 "