RANJEET KUMAR (INDIVIDUAL),BEGUSARAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (1), BEGUSARAI

ITA 198/PAT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ranjeet Kumar, an individual, who appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Begusarai, Bihar, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. The primary contention was regarding the reassessment of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16, where it was alleged that Ranjeet Kumar had made unexplained investments in immovable property amounting to Rs. 1,57,98,000. The assessee argued that the reassessment and subsequent orders were passed without proper notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as he did not receive any communication regarding the hearings or notices on his registered email or mobile, nor were they visible on the income tax portal during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the lack of proper communication and the failure to consider the grounds of appeal on merits, leading to the decision to remand the case back for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714476 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 271(1)(c); 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण पटना पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्चुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] श्री संजय शमाु, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राक ेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 198/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ranjeet Kumar (Individual) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1), Begusarai, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: CKEPK3167J Appearances: Assessee represented by : Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 24-July-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 06-August-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [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 2015-16 dated 17.02.2025, Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 198/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ranjeet Kumar (Individual). which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 31.01.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing ex-parte order dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the Ld. A.O. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in a routine manner and in violation of Principle of Equity and Natural Justice. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal by passing a non-speaking order and without discussing the grounds of appeal on merits which is in violation of Principle of Natural Justice. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that the appellant has not been served any notice through speed post/mobile number and thus the notice cannot be deemed to be duly served upon the appellant in terms of section 282 of the L.T. Act, 1961. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that the appellant has not been served any hearing notice in the primary mail box of registered mail id and also that no notices were uploaded in \"for your action\" tab of the income tax portal during pendency of the CIT Appeal proceedings and there was no effective communication of hearing notices to the appellant. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal on merits on the basis of available facts on record has failed to take into consideration the grounds of appeal as pleaded by the appellant in Form 35 and statement of facts mentioned therein. 7. For that the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not making compliance resulting into ex-parte appellate order. 8. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,57,98,000/- u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act being Unexplained investments in immovable property. 9. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld. A.O as the initiation of reassessment u/s 147/148 of the Act, reopening the case and consequent reassessment proceedings/order are illegal, ab initio void as provisions of sec. 147 are not satisfied in the case of appellant and reopening of the assessment is not in accordance with provisions of law as there was no escapement within the meaning of sec. 147 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 198/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ranjeet Kumar (Individual). 10. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that entire proceedings of reassessment were void ab initio as the section 148 notices were not issued through NFAC and instead by the Ld. JAO, which is in violation of section 144B of the Act. 11. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case and is fit to be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) and the appellant assures all co-operation in future and timely compliance of the notices which are to be placed on e-portal tab 'For your action' followed by real time email message on registered email/ registered mobile. 12. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. A.O taxing income of Rs. 1,57,98,000/- u/s 115BBE as the provisions of section 69 are not applicable to the case of appellant. 13. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. A.O wherein the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) as the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted. 14. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. A.O wherein the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) as the provisions of this section are not attracted. 15. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. A.O wherein the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271F r.w.s. 274 as the provisions of this section are not attracted. 16. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission in the form of paper book along with documents and evidences on or before date of hearing. 17. For that the appellant may be given opportunity of personal hearing virtually at the time of hearing of the appeal. 18. For that the whole order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in fact and law of the case and is fit to be annulled. 19. For that the 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 and had not filed return of income for AY 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') was in possession of information that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for an amount of ₹1,57,98,000/-. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 198/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ranjeet Kumar (Individual). after issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessment was made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹1,57,98,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices and since there was no response from the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Before us, it is submitted in the statement of facts as under: “Being aggrieved by this Assessment Order, the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [\"CIT(A)\" for short] bearing acknowledgement number 390564380030624 on 03.06.2024. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Act on 17.02.2025 confirming the order of the Ld. A.O and dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant a routine manner in utter violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The Appellant was an ordinary Farmer, who was completely dependent on his counsel for the CIT(A) proceedings. After the CIT (A) order was passed, the Appellant was informed by the counsel who was engaged for CIT(A) matter that No notices were visible on the \"For your action \" tab of the Income Tax Portal of the Appellant during the pendency of the proceedings, however, after the passing of ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A), the orders as well as the notices relating to CIT(A) proceedings became visible on the \"for your information tab\" of the appellant. The Email was also tracked by the counsel but no notices were received in the primary inbox of the email id. Neither any hard copy of Notices was received by the appellant nor the appellant received any intimation of any hearing notice on his registered mobile number/WhatsApp. Due to such technical glitches and the compulsion of the appellant to depend on his counsel, the appellant was unable to get an effective opportunity to participate in the CIT(A) proceedings. Although it is mentioned in the Appeal order that the case is being decided on merits and on the basis of available facts on record, it is seen that The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the fact that the appellant has purchased an immovable property of only Rs.15,75,000/- on 2/03/2015 as per copy of sale deed attached with statement of facts and grounds of appeal in Form No 35 filed by the appellant and has passed a non-speaking order confirming the demand in the Assessment order.” 5. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. AO as the assessee has sufficient evidence for the source of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 198/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ranjeet Kumar (Individual). investment made and due compliance could not be made on account of lack of communication. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other end, vehemently argued that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the order of the Ld. AO and remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 6th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 06.08.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 I.T.A. No.: 198/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ranjeet Kumar (Individual). Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Ranjeet Kumar (Individual), S/o Saryu Prasad, Srinagar, Pochharrapatti, Ward No-10, Raghunathpur, Bararichharrapat I, Chharrapatti B.O, Begusarai, Bihar, 851217. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Begusarai, Bihar. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Patna Bench, Patna. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "