SHIV NANDAN PRASAD SUMAN,MADHUBANI V. ITO, WARD - 6(1), PATNA

ITA 374/PAT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shiv Nandan Prasad Suman, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)), which dismissed his appeal on technical grounds without considering the merits. The original assessment by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) included unexplained investments and other incomes, leading to a tax liability which the assessee disputed. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-payment of advance tax, as required under section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, without considering the substantive issues raised by the assessee. The Tribunal found this approach unsatisfactory and remanded the case for a detailed examination of the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470784 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income
• Section: 147; 250

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.374/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shiv Nandan Prasad Suman….....…..…………………....Appellant Laukaha, Madhubani, Bihar-847421. [PAN: AITPS3598Q] vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Patna…....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Mayank Manvendra, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 28, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.02.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The assessment order was framed in the case of the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act as the assessee failed to file return of income for assessment year 2013-14 within the prescribed limit. The Assessing Officer determined total income of the assessee at Rs.20,24,948/- by making certain additions in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.1445000/- u/s 69 of the Act, salary income of Rs.576492/- and interest income of Rs.3456/-. I.T.A. No.374/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shiv Nandan Prasad Suman 2 3. Dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee was liable to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax. He also stated that the assessee did not file application as per the proviso to section 249(4) seeking exemption from operation of provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground without going into merits of the case. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. He argued that the aforesaid additions made by the Assessing Officer was contrary to the provisions of law and there was no actual tax liability as determined by the Assessing Officer. He also claimed that the assessee had no advance tax liability as alleged by the ld. CIT(A) in his order. He prayed before us that one more opportunity may be given to decide the issue on merits after producing supporting documents in support of his claim. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the decisions of the authorities below. 6. We, after considering the rival submissions and reviewing the documents available on record, find that the ld. CIT(A) has not properly considered the documents filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the ground of payment of advance tax without entering into merits of the case. We, therefore, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, deem it necessary to provide the assessee with an opportunity to submit required/relevant documents to substantiate his claim before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we remand the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to file necessary application before the ld. CIT(A) in order to I.T.A. No.374/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shiv Nandan Prasad Suman 3 explain reasons for non-payment of advance tax if and when it is necessary. The ld. CIT(A) is also directed to re-examine the submissions and documents of the assessee and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 30th January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 30.01.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Shiv Nandan Prasad Suman 2. ITO, Ward-6(1), Patna 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches "