MITHILESH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR V. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), SAMASTIPUR

ITA 427/PAT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mithilesh Prasad, a dealer of LPG cylinders with Indian Oil Corporation Limited, who appealed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention arose from the additions made by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, which significantly increased the assessee's declared income from 6,04,460 to 24,80,238. The additions included an unsecured loan, disallowance of expenses, and substantial cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, leading to the current appeal. Despite the absence of the appellant at the hearing, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 828696 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Patna
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences

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.427/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mithilesh Prasad…………….………………. …………………....Appellant S/o Ram Bhakta Baitha, Damodarpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001. [PAN: ANKPP5641D] vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Samastipur…....……………..………………….…..... 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 : January 08, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : January 12, 2026 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC) and derives income from the sale of LPG cylinders. For the assessment year 2017–18, the assessee filed his return of income declaring a total income of ₹6,04,460. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made various Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.427/Pat/2025 Mithilesh Prasad 2 additions and assessed the total income at ₹24,80,238, inter alia, on account of the following: 1. Unsecured loan from Shri Subodh Kumar Singh amounting to ₹6,25,000; 2. disallowance of expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss Account amounting to ₹617878/- 3. Cash deposits of ₹63,29,000 during the demonetisation period, out of which 10%, i.e., ₹6,32,900, was added under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act; and 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and sustained the additions, inter alia, on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish confirmation of account from Shri Subodh Kumar Singh in respect of the unsecured loan, the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the cash deposits of ₹63,29,000 during the demonetisation period; and the assessee failed to justify the decline in net profit ratio as compared to the immediately preceding assessment year. 4. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. However, despite issuance of notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely and was heard ex parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR, who supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. From the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.427/Pat/2025 Mithilesh Prasad 3 record, it is evident that the assessee failed to furnish confirmation and supporting evidence in respect of the unsecured loan of ₹6,25,000, Proper explanation regarding cash deposits of ₹63,29,000 during the demonetisation period; and justification for the decline in net profit ratio from 2.01% to 1.68% as compared to the preceding assessment year. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claims with supporting evidence. Accordingly, the entire matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to examine the issues afresh on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate fully and furnish all necessary supporting documents. In case of failure to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A), the appellate authority shall be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 12th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 12.01.2026. RS Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.427/Pat/2025 Mithilesh Prasad 4 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 "