PAWAN KUMAR PODDAR,JAMSHEDPUR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 208/RAN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pawan Kumar Poddar, an individual and director of M/s. Hariom Smelters Private Limited, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3. The appeal was related to the Assessment Year 2015-16, where various additions totaling Rs. 20,44,946 were made to the assessee's income based on alleged unaccounted drawings. The primary contention was the lack of a fair hearing and the procedural handling of notices, which were allegedly managed by the assessee's accountant without proper communication to the assessee. The Tribunal recognized the procedural lapses and the need for a substantive review of the assessment made under Sections 153A and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848568 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Ranchi
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Documents seized; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 139; 133A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 208/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year-2015-16) (Virtual Hearing) Pawan Kumar Poddar, 2, C.H. Area, Road No. 13, Sonari, Jamshedpur-831011 (Jharkhand) PAN No. ABJPP 6962 C Vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle, Jamshedpur. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Nitin Pasari, A.R. Department represented by Md. Shadab Ahmed, CIT-DR Date of hearing 05/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/03/2026 O R D E R PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M. 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3, Patna [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 31/03/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: \"A) FOR THAT, the Assessing Officer (AO) erred both on facts and in law in making various additions totaling Rs. 20,44,946/- (Rs. 13,520/-, Rs. 1,40,000/-, Rs. 1,33,400/-, Rs. 1,08,500/-, Rs. 6,381/-, Rs. 15,03,145/-, and another Rs. 1,40,000/-) on account of alleged drawings made from unaccounted income without duly appreciating the Appellant's consistent submission that the drawings found in the seized documents were duly recorded in the regular books of accounts and had been properly reconciled. The additions were made without giving due consideration to the Appellant's explanation or affording an opportunity to cross-examine, which constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the additions are unjustified and liable to be deleted. B) FOR THAT, the appeal order dated 31.03.2025 was passed ex parte as the notices were served on an email ID which was created by the accountant of the Appellant and was being managed by him only. A bare perusal of the email Id on Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 208/Ran/2025 Pawan Kr Poddar Vs ACIT 2 which notices were being served would transpire that the said email Id pertains to the company in which the Appellant is a Director which was registered in the profile of the Appellant. C) FOR THAT the Appellant was unable to comply with the hearing notices due to negligence of accountant of the Appellant who did not check the email and failed to inform the Appellant about receipt of such notice. D) FOR THAT the Appellant became aware of the proceedings only when the Appellant changed his accountant and the new accountant casually checked the profile on the Income Tax Portal of the Appellant wherein he then informed that hearing notices have been issued. E) FOR THAT, after being informed about the hearing notices the Appellant approached his Chartered Accountant who informed him that he was out of station and advised the Appellant to seek adjournment. F) FOR THAT, since the appeal pertains to the period 2015-16, it was difficult for the Appellant to gather all the information and details on which reliance has to be placed, the appellant sought further one month's time which was not allowed and order under Section 250 was passed on 31.03.2025. G) FOR THAT, the Learned Appellate Authority has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-prosecution, without appreciating the merits of the case and without adjudicating upon the grounds raised in the appeal. H) FOR THAT, the impugned order places excessive reliance on procedural defaults and ignores the settled principle that justice should not be denied merely on technicalities, particularly when substantive issues relating to assessment errors remain undecided. I) FOR THAT, the learned Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the Appellant had filed a valid appeal along with detailed grounds and had at no stage expressed any intention of abandoning or withdrawing the same. Therefore, the dismissal on the basis of non-prosecution is arbitrary and unwarranted. J) FOR THAT the learned Appellate Authority has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts which relate to willful and prolonged absence or abandonment, which is not the case of the Appellant. K) FOR THAT, the assessment framed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable in the eyes of law as the Learned Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 208/Ran/2025 Pawan Kr Poddar Vs ACIT 3 AO made additions to the income of the Appellant amounting to 220,21,320/- solely on the basis of certain seized documents that too without establishing the genuineness of the said documents. L) FOR THAT, the Appellant besieges unconditional and unqualified apology for not appearing before the Appellate Authority due to inadvertence. M) FOR THAT, the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing in the interest of justice.\" 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual, who is one of the Directors of M/s. Hariom Smelters Private Limited. A search & seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were carried out on 23.08.2016 and subsequent dates in the residential as well as business premises of Poddar Group. Alongwith search & seizure operation, survey u/s 133A of the Act was also conducted at some business premises of this group. Notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30/01/2018 and served upon the assessee on 01/02/2018. In response to the notice under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/07/2018 declaring income of Rs.3,66,410/-. The assessee had also filed return under Section 139 of the Act declaring income of Rs.3,66,410/-. Statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act were issued and served to the assessee on 14/11/2018. Other statutory notices were also issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notices, Sri Varun Singh, Authorized Representative (A/R) of the assessee appeared from time to time and produced relevant written submission/details/documents. The Assessing Officer after considering the material placed before him, completed the assessment under Section 153A Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 208/Ran/2025 Pawan Kr Poddar Vs ACIT 4 read with Section 143(3) of the Act on 28/12/2018 by making various additions/disallowances. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the appellant failed to furnish the requisite details and documentary evidence in support of its claim made in the grounds of appeal in spite of affording sufficient opportunities. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) have not given fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. No sufficient and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is provided. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. 6. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR supported the orders of the revenue authorities. Ld. CIT-DR submits that the revenue authorities have provided more than sufficient opportunities to the assessee to comply with the notices but assessee failed to avail such opportunities.Thus, the assessee does not deserve any leniency and additions made by the Assessing Officer may be upheld. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 208/Ran/2025 Pawan Kr Poddar Vs ACIT 5 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 28/12/2018. We find that during the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) issued various statutory notices as recorded in para 5.1 of impugned order. The assessee has not complied with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Now before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that no fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee and one more opportunity should be provided to decide the matter on merit and therefore the matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Though, it is correct that reasonable opportunities have been provided to the assessee, which he did not avail but the facts remains that the income tax laws are within the ambit of welfare legislation which are absolutely separate from penal legislation and therefore, given the facts and circumstances and as per applicable law, benefit of doubt has to be attributed to the assessee/tax payer. There may be circumstances beyond the control of assessee or \"vis major\" because of which the assessee may not have able to comply with the notices before the revenue authorities. Under the given facts on record, which cannot be said that such non-compliance was deliberate or malafide on the part of assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 208/Ran/2025 Pawan Kr Poddar Vs ACIT 6 directed to avail this opportunity as a last chance and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without any valid reasons and to furnish all the details and evidences to justify various grounds of appeal raised by him before the Assessing Officer. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order Pronounced in open court on 25th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 25/03/2026 *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 "