HASEENA BEGUM,BHOPAL vs. ITO-4(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 17.01.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.11.2018 passed by learned ITO-4(3), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds as mentioned in Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo).

therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/affidavit for

condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an

immediate reference:

are self-explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and

the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones

delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the

explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or

material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for

delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act

empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if

there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time.

It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land

Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387

that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed

to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting

a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the

provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we

take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with

hearing.

assessee-individual filed return of income of AY 2011-12 declaring a total

income of Rs. 1,57,600/- which was assessed. Subsequently, on the basis of

information available in AIR revealing that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.

11,50,000/- in a/c with Central Bank of India, the AO issued notice dated

28.03.2018 to re-open case of assessee u/s 147. However, the assessee remained non-compliant. The AO thereafter issued multiple notices u/s

142(1) but still the assessee remained non-compliant. Finally, the AO issued

a show-cause notice u/s 144 and made service through speed-post and

inspector of department but still the assessee remained non-complaint.

Ultimately, the AO completed assessment u/s 144 after making an addition

of Rs. 11,50,000/- on account of unexplained deposit in bank a/c.

Aggrieved, the assessee caried matter in first-appeal but could not represent,

therefore the CIT(A) did not grant any relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee has

come in next appeal before us.

lady and not aware of tax proceedings, could not participate before AO

during assessment-proceeding, which led the AO to make ex-parte

assessment u/s 144. During first appellate proceeding also, the assessee

sought adjournments on two occasions but, however, could not make

representation before CIT(A), which led the CIT(A) to pass ex-parte order

approving AO’s order. He submitted that the AO has made addition of Rs.

11,50,000/- on account of unexplained deposit in bank a/c but the

assessee has collected required evidences to explain the source of deposits.

He prayed that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be given to

assessee by way of restoring this matter at the level of Ld. AO for a de novo

adjudication. He acknowledged that the assessee shall definitely make a

proper and effective representation before Ld. AO.

assessee for restoration, submitted that the assessee had remained non-

compliant before both of the lower-authorities despite ample opportunities

given. He pointed out that the AO served notices upon assessee through

speed post as well as inspector service. It was, therefore, submitted that

while restoring the matter, appropriate directions may be issued to ensure

strict compliance by the assessee including imposition of suitable cost.

of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be

caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of Ld. AO, we

remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for adjudication afresh, at the

risk and responsibility of assessee. The Ld. AO shall give necessary

opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order

uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain

vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by Ld. AO

without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. AO shall

be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

before AO despite service of notices through speed post and inspector

of department. Further, the assessee has also remained non-

participative despite adjournments granted by CIT(A). Therefore, in

order to offset the revenue’s efforts in dealing assessee’s case, we

impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by assessee to Income-tax Department through appropriate challan. The assessee shall submit a

copy of duly paid challan to AO during the proceeding of fresh

adjudication and shall not claim any credit or refund of such payment.

to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned above.

Order pronounced in open court on 17/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore

िदनांक/Dated : 17/04/2026

Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 6 of 6