VIRENDRA YADAV,MADHUBANI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), DARBHANGA, DARBHANGA

ITA 248/PAT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Virendra Yadav, a civil contractor, who appealed against the order of the ACIT, Circle-3, Darbhanga, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was initially delayed by 373 days, for which the Tribunal found reasonable cause and condoned the delay. The assessee's return was selected for scrutiny, and due to non-compliance with notices, an estimated income was added to the assessee's total income. The CIT(A) upheld this decision due to non-compliance, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision was made ex parte and without addressing the merits, contrary to section 250(6) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33410 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause
• Section: 144; 142(1); 143(2); 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.248/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Virendra Yadav……..…………………………………………..………….……Appellant Mainapatti, Maheshbada Khajauli, Madhubani, Bihar-847228. [PAN: AGWPY8420E] vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Darbhanga.……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT - Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 04, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : February 04, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against an order dated 30.11.2022 of the ACIT, Circle-3, Darbh [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. At the outset, the Registry has informed that there is a delay of 373 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause which was beyond the control of the assessee and the delay was not intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case. 3. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of serving notices for hearing and the Tribunal cannot keep these appeals pending for indefinite time due to non-representation. Therefore, in the absence of any authorised representative of the assessee, we proceed to decide I.T.A. No.248/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Virendra Yadav 2 the appeal with the help of ld. DR and also considering the material available on record. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is civil contractor and engaged in the business of construction work. The assessee e-filed his return of income on 28.01.2017 declaring total income of Rs.38,90,980/. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued requisitioning some details such as audit report, books of account, sales tax return, bank details etc. As there was no compliance to the notices issued, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.51,02,043/- on estimation basis and added the same to the total income of the assessee by assessing total income of Rs.8993023/- and completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, at the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 7. The ld. DR supported the decisions rendered by the authorities below. 8. We, after hearing of the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed ex parte since no compliance was made on the part of the assessee. We also find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed without addressing the merit of the case which is contrary to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. In the interests of justice and fair place, we, therefore, deem it fit to remand the whole issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re- I.T.A. No.248/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Virendra Yadav 3 examine the issues on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee for submitting relevant details or documents to substantiate the claim of the assessee. We also emphasise that the assessee must fully cooperate by responding all notices and due compliance will made during the remand proceedings. 9. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 4th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 04.02.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Virendra Yadav 2. ITO, Ward-3(1), Darbhanga 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches "