SURYA DEV YADAV,DARBHANGA V. ITO WARD 3(2), DARBHANGA

ITA 575/PAT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Surya Dev Yadav, a businessman engaged in cement trading, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming an addition of Rs. 35,08,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer due to unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee argued that these deposits were from business receipts and that the assessment was conducted ex parte under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without his knowledge. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a proper hearing and thus remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32399 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income
• Section: 144; 142(1); 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA “SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 575/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Surya Dev Yadav ………….. Appellant Raghepura, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga, Bihar-846001. (PAN: AJNPY0729N) Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Darbhanga .............. Respondent Appearances: Appellant represented by: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate Respondent represented by: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 13.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 13.02.2025 ORDER The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.08.2024 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. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.35,08,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is an ex parte/best judgement order u/s. 144 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is in the business of cement trading. That the assessee is a regular filer of the income tax return. That the total turnover of the assessee in the year under consideration was Rs.6.42 crore. That the assessee had engaged a Chartered Accountant to look into his income tax compliances and procedures. That the said Chartered Accountant filed the I.T.A. No.: 575/PAT/2024 Surya Dev Yadav, AY : 2017-18 Page 2 of 3 audit report in Form 3CB of the Act and even, he also deposited the self assessed tax to the department. However, inadvertently, he forgot to file the income tax return. Even the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer also escaped attention and did not come to the notice of the assessee or his Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were carried out u/s. 144 of the Act without notice to the assessee resulting into the impugned addition. 3.1. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the bank deposits in question were out of receipts of business/sales of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A). That a belated return was also filed. That the Ld. CIT(A) had also called upon a remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, since the remand report was not received by the ld. CIT(A) even after issuing multiple reminders, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 3.2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits. That the assessee is a businessman and the aforesaid deposits were out of business receipts of the assessee. The assessee tried his best to make income tax compliances. Even audit report was also duly furnished and self assessment tax was also deposited. He, therefore, has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to represent his case before the Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. DR, however, has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. Impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly, set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for assessment afresh on the issue. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law. I.T.A. No.: 575/PAT/2024 Surya Dev Yadav, AY : 2017-18 Page 3 of 3 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] Judicial Member Dated: 13.02.2025 J.Dey (Sr. P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant : Shri Surya Dev Yadav 2. Respondent : ITO, Ward-3(2), Darbhanga 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Patna Bench, Patna. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Patna Benches Patna "