IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing]

Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 333/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Birju Kumar ITO, Ward-1(3), Vaishali Vs.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AABTM7238F Appearances:

Assessee represented by : Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate Department represented by : Shri Himanshu Kumar, CIT Date of concluding the hearing : 17-September-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 27-November-2025

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the ld.

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 2017-18 dated 25.07.2024.

1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation in filing the appeal by 294 days. However, the assessee has filed an affidavit before the ITAT dated 15th July, 2025 requested for condonation of delay of 294 days by mentioning that he has been struggling with health issues and was advised complete bed rest by the attending physician. He has also stated in the affidavit that he was unable to attend to his business and legal responsibilities, which includes the filing of appeal within time line. He has also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was purely unintentional and occurred due to circumstances beyond his control as he was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and when he came to know about the same, he approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to which there is a delay of 294 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay of

294 days and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, vide order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ('the Act), dated 25-07-

2024.

2. For that the NFAC erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Vaishali, ('the Ld. AO’), assessing the appellant under section 144 of the Act, vide order dated 27-12-2019 at an income of Rs 55,04,960/- against the returned income of Rs. 5,24,260/-, which is wrong, Illegal and unjustified.

3. For that the learned NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs 49,80,700/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposited in the bank account under section 68 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified.

4. For that the learned NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in not resorting to the newly inserted section 251(1)(a) of the Act by not remanding back the matter to the assessing officer, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified.

5. For that the learned NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the AO in arbitrarily passing ex-party order without allowing proper opportunity of being heard, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified.

6. That the whole order passed by the NFAC is bad in facts and law.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or vary the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who derives income from jewellery and mobile business in the name of M/s. Rinki Alankar Jewellers and M/s. Rinki Enterprises and that filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year showing total income of ₹ 5,24,260/-, which was