MRITUNJAY KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD W2(2), RANCHI, RANCHI

ITA 32/RAN/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mritunjay Kumar Singh against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which was dated 01/01/2024. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices fixing the date of hearing. The assessee argued that the notices were not received, leading to an ex parte order. The Income Tax Officer had previously made additions on account of unexplained investment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, provided the assessee complies with the stipulated cost and conditions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717037 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIKHUBCHAND T PANDYA
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK S. SINHA; ASTHA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Mansi Niketan, Opp Pratibha Apt., South Office Para Doranda, Ranchi. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per: Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A),Ranchi 2. Shri Abhishek S. Sinha with Ms. Astha assessee. Shri the revenue. 3. Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed th appeal for non IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.32/RAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Mansi Niketan, Opp- Pratibha Apt., South Office Para Doranda, Ranchi. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ranchi. PAN/GIR No.AKPPS 1707 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Abhishek S. Sinha, AR with Ms. Astha, AR Revenue by : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Date of Hearing : 21/08 Date of Pronouncement : 21/08 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 01/01/2024 Ranchi/10710/2019-20 for the assessment year Abhishek S. Sinha with Ms. Astha, ld AR assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr. DR represented on behalf of Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed th appeal for non-compliance of notices fixing the date of hearing P a g e 1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, 2(2), Respondent) AR with Ms. Astha, AR Khubchand T Pandya, Sr.DR 08/2025 /08/2025 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld in Appeal No. for the assessment year 2017-18. ld ARs appeared for the represented on behalf of Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the compliance of notices fixing the date of hearing. He further Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.32/RAN/2024 Mritunjay Kumar Singh Vs ITO P a g e 2 | 3 submitted that though various notices were sent by the ld CIT(A) but the notices were not received by the assessee. Ld CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte by not providing adequate opportunity of hearing. It was a submission that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act may making addition on account of unexplained investment. The ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to represent his case before the AO as during the assessment proceedings also, all the relevant documents were not furnished. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ld CIT(A) has given various opportunities to the assessee to represent his case and file all relevant documents in support of the claim but there was no response from the side of the assessee, therefore, ld CIT(A) had no option but to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merits on the basis of materials available on record, although the appeal was not maintainable as per law. Before us, ld AR prayed one more opportunity to represent his case before the AO as all the documents were not filed before the AO. In view of above, in order to render substantial justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.32/RAN/2024 Mritunjay Kumar Singh Vs ITO P a g e 3 | 3 paid by the assessee to the Jharkhand Tax Bar Association within one month from the date of this order and receipt of payment be produced before the Assessing Officer. The liberty is granted to the assessee to produce all the relevant documents, evidences and other details as are required to prove his case before the Assessing Officer. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 21/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 21/08/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi Printed from counselvise.com "