PINKU KUMAR SAH,ARARIA V. ITO, WARD-3(3), PURNIA

ITA 480/PAT/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Pinku Kumar Sah, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was initially time-barred by 221 days, and the appellant sought condonation of this delay, citing lack of awareness and communication from his authorized representative. The primary grievances included arbitrary additions to income based on non-existent sales and unexplained cash balances, which were contested as baseless and hypothetical. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for a fair hearing and thus restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471229 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 147; 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 480/PAT/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pinku Kumar Sah ………….. Appellant Kursakanta, Araria, Bihar-854331. (PAN: EOTPS9513H) Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Purnia .............. Respondent Appearances: Appellant represented by: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, CA Respondent represented by: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 20.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 20.01.2025 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.12.2021 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. ‘CIT (A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. This appeal is time barred by 221 days. 3. The assessee in this appeal has taken up the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the condonation of delay on submission of 2nd appeal for 220 days consisting of 08 months and 09 days may kindly be granted for the sake of justice. I.T.A. No.: 480/PAT/2022 Pinku Kumar Sah, AY : 2017-18 Page 2 of 4 2. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, both the learned authorities below completed the assessment by making total additions of Rs.23,98,218/- in assessment U/s. 147 and confirming the same addition in appeal order U/s. 250 on same baseless fact and estimate of income. Therefore, both the orders are totally bad in law & fact and also the procedure of assessment. 3. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below erred in making arbitrary and baseless total addition of income Rs.16,30,809/- on account of non-existence sales of goods ignoring the closing stock of the goods as on 31.03.2018 Rs.11,32,768/- by arbitrarily considering the non-existent sale total of Rs. 11,31,849/- whereas the appellant case was selected for scrutiny for the cash deposits of Rs.12,25,000/- made in the bank account in demonetization period without any verification and other transactions made in the bank account with source thereof. Rather an arbitrary, baseless addition of Rs.16,30,809/- has been made which was also been confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Hence, this hypothetical addition of Rs.16,30,809/- is fit to be deleted. 4. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.7,67,409/- in assessment and confirmed the same in appeal proceeding, the opening cash in hand on 01.04.2016 on the ground the appellant has not filed ITR for the A.Y.: 2016-17 whereas it is evident in record that the appellant assessee is doing business of rice since long by availing cash credit facility from bank. Therefore, the addition of opening cash balance of Rs. 7,67,409/- U/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is totally hypothetical, baseless, wrong and arbitrary assumption of fact having no relation of the actual fact of the case and hence, such wrong assumption basis addition u/s, 68 Rs.7,67,409/- is fit to be deleted. 5. For that, the appellant craves, leave to add, modify and amend any of the grounds of the appeal at the time of hearing.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel in this respect has submitted that the assessee is a small trader and was not aware of the complexities of the income tax proceedings. That no notice in physical form was ever served by the Ld. CIT(A) on the assessee. The e-mail, if any, sent by the Ld. CIT(A) may have been sent on the e-mail ID of the authorized representative/counsel of the assessee, but he did not inform the assessee about this nor he represented the case of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Even the assessee was not aware of the passing of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It was only when the notice of demand was received by the assessee then the assessee came to know of I.T.A. No.: 480/PAT/2022 Pinku Kumar Sah, AY : 2017-18 Page 3 of 4 the passing of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, has submitted that the non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was not intentional rather due to the aforesaid facts and circumstances. He, therefore, has requested that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee may demonstrate his case before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, had relied on the finding of the lower authorities. 6. Considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that in this case, the interests of justice will be well served if the assessee is given an opportunity to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Awasthi] [Sanjay Garg] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 20.01.2025 J.Dey (Sr. P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 480/PAT/2022 Pinku Kumar Sah, AY : 2017-18 Page 4 of 4 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant : Shri Pinku Kumar Sah 2. Respondent : ITO, Ward-3(3) 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. CIT(DR), Patna Bench, Patna. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Patna Benches Patna "