SHRI SHAMBHU SHARAN SINGH,GOPALGANJ V. .ACIT CIRCLE- 2 (1), MUZAFFARPUR

ITA 346/PAT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Shambhu Sharan Singh, who filed a return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring an income of Rs.65,87,030. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but was later revised under section 263 due to issues not properly examined by the Assessing Officer, including unexplained credits in the assessee's bank account and improper accounting of withheld sums. The assessee failed to comply with notices and hearings, leading to an ex-parte order by the Assessing Officer and subsequently by the CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal, which granted another opportunity for the assessee to present his case, citing principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24508 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KR. SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH RASTOGI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 143(3); 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA (Through Virtual hearing at Kolkata) BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, AM ITA No. 346/PAT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shambhu Sharan Singh Amtha Khem, Line Bazar, Meerganj, Gopalganj, Bihar-841438 Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Muzaffarpur Aaykar Bhavan, Near Nehru, Stadium, Sikandarpur, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAYFS8234L Assessee by : Shri Manish Rastogi, AR Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kr. Shukla, DR Date of hearing: 18.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 23.12.2024 O R D E R Per Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: In the case of present assessee filed a return of income for assessment year 2012-13, declaring an amount of Rs.65,87,030/-. 02. The original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 19.03.2015 at Rs.72,31,410/-. Later, the ld. PCIT invoked section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to revise the assessment due to specific issues not properly examined by the ld. Assessing Officer on the issue of Rs.1,61,03,705/- credited in the bank A/c of the assessee and sum of Rs.5,81,189/- was left to be included in the Page | 2 ITA No. 346/Pat/2023 Shri Shambhu Sharan Singh; A.Y. 2012-13 gross contractual receipt during the year. Further, sum of Rs.72,08,670/- was withheld by deductor under head of ‘time extension’, which was required to be entered in B/s, but assessee has shown the alleged sum in the P&L Account by debiting as expenses, which were not properly examined by the ld. Assessing Officer while framing the original assessment order. Therefore, the ld. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee. However, the assessee never turned up before the ld. Assessing Officer despite repeated opportunities given, leading to the that the ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by adding the sum of rs.72,08,670/- treated as part of the total income instead of being shown as expenses in P&L Account and sum of Rs.5,81,189/- treated as explained income which was not reflected in the return by assessing the total income at Rs.143,70,688/-. 03. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to appear on 16th consecutive hearing dates, leading to this the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order against the assessee. 04. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), assessee appealed to the Tribunal raising several grounds primarily arguing that the ex-parte order of the ld. Assessing Officer and CIT(A) denied the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the ld. AR requested another opportunity to comply and provide support evidence in order to controverted the facts. 05. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the appeal, emphasizing that the assessee has non-compliance history and arguing for dismissal of assessee’s appeal. Page | 3 ITA No. 346/Pat/2023 Shri Shambhu Sharan Singh; A.Y. 2012-13 06. We after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we note that the assessee had repeatedly failed to comply with the notices and hearing dates, but in the principles of the natural justice assessee required giving at least one more opportunity to present its case and considering the submissions of the ld. AR that the assessee’s non-compliance was due to ignore of its engaged counsel and assured full co-operation going forward. We therefore, feel it necessary to remand back the whole issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer with a direction that reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee during denovo proceedings. The assessee is directed to fully comply with all notices issued by the ld. Assessing Officer. 07. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (SONJOY SARMA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated:23.12.2024 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna "