KANTI LAL,JALORE RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, JALORE, RAJASTHAN

At the outset, it is noticed that, as reported by the Registry, each of the four appeals is delayed by 98 days. The assessee has filed petitions seeking condonation of the delay, supported by affidavit and other material.

The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee is an individual residing at village Jakhari Raniwara in District Jalore and carries on the business of supplying milk and cattle feed. It was submitted that the assessee has studied only up to the fifth standard and is not conversant with the provisions of the Income Tax Act or the electronic mode of communication adopted by the Income Tax Department. He was, therefore, dependent upon his accountant and professional advisers for attending to his income-tax matters.

It was further submitted that the email address registered on the income-tax portal was used only for income-tax and GST purposes and was being operated by the former Chartered Accountant for filing returns and receiving OTPs. The assessee was not accustomed to

The first appeals were filed in June 2024 through CA Ankit Roongta, who had been introduced to the assessee through Karnavati Dairy. However, he was not the regular Chartered Accountant of the assessee and his office was situated at Ahmedabad, at a considerable distance from the village of the assessee. Because of the absence of regular communication and follow-up, the assessee did not become aware of the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) on 07.10.2024 until March 2025.

The assessee has also placed on record a certificate dated 09.05.2025 issued by CA Ankit Roongta, bearing Membership No. 140749 and UDIN 25140749BMGXOF7130. The certificate confirms that the first appeals for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 were filed through him; that the assessee was not his regular client; that the assessee resided at a place distant from his office; that regular follow-up could not take place after the appeals were filed; and that the orders of

The learned DR raised no objection to the condonation of the delay.

We have considered the explanation furnished by the assessee, the affidavit, the certificate of the Chartered Accountant and the submissions of both sides. The delay is neither deliberate nor shown to have conferred any advantage upon the assessee. The explanation is supported by the certificate of the professional through whom the first appeals were filed. Having regard to the circumstances explained and the fact that the learned DR has raised no objection, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 98 days in each of the four appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.

The grounds raised by the assessee in these appeals are common in substance. Ground No. 1 challenges the respective quantum addition or penalty confirmed by the learned CIT(A); Ground No. 2 seeks admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 and restoration of the matter to the

Information available on the Insight portal indicated substantial cash deposits and withdrawals in the assessee’s bank account maintained with ICICI Bank, Raniwara Branch. Based upon such

According to the assessee, the failure to comply occurred because the earlier Chartered Accountant did not provide the necessary assistance and did not bring the electronic communications to the notice of the assessee. It was also claimed that the registered email address was handled by the former Chartered Accountant and that the assessee was neither conversant with the use of email nor capable of understanding the contents of the electronic notices.

The Assessing Officer estimated the business income of the assessee at 10% of the business receipts for assessment year 2018-19 and at 8% of the business receipts for assessment year 2019-20. Penalties under sections 271A and 270A were also imposed for assessment year 2018-19.

The assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A). Notices under section 250 were issued on 11.07.2024, 23.07.2024 and 13.09.2024.

The year-wise particulars of the quantum additions, penalties and the figures claimed by the assessee on the basis of the subsequently prepared and audited accounts are tabulated below:

The figures claimed by the assessee on the basis of the subsequently prepared accounts have not been examined by either of the lower authorities. There is also a difference between the amount of business receipts adopted by the Assessing Officer and the sales reflected in the accounts subsequently produced by the assessee. These differences require factual examination and reconciliation with the bank statements, sales and purchase records and confirmations furnished by the assessee.

Before us, the assessee has filed a common application dated 21.07.2026 under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking admission of additional evidence for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The additional evidence is contained in a paper book comprising 1,495 pages and consists of the following material:

The learned AR submitted that the additional evidence could not be produced before the Assessing Officer or the learned CIT(A) because the assessee was not effectively represented and was dependent upon his former professional adviser. It was submitted that the additional evidence goes to the root of the controversy because the additions were made by estimating the profit without examining the books of account, purchase records, bank statements and confirmations from the principal buyer. The learned AR accordingly prayed that the evidence be admitted and the matters be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The learned DR did not raise any objection to the request for restoration of the matters to the Assessing Officer for verification of the additional evidence.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the reassessment proceedings were completed ex-parte and that no supporting material was filed before the learned CIT(A). Consequently,

The additional evidence has a direct bearing on the nature and quantum of the business receipts, the corresponding purchases, the movement of funds through the bank account and the actual profit arising from the business. The evidence is also relevant to the penalties imposed under sections 271A and 270A. A proper adjudication of the controversy is not possible without examining and reconciling this material.

At the same time, the material now produced is voluminous and has been placed before the Tribunal for the first time. Its authenticity, completeness and evidentiary value have not been verified by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal ought not to record findings upon such material without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to undertake the necessary factual verification.

In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the learned DR has not objected to the request, the additional evidence is

We accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matters arising in all four appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh in accordance with law.

The Assessing Officer shall specifically reconcile the business receipts adopted in the ex parte assessment orders with the sales reflected in the subsequently audited accounts and the credits appearing in the bank statements. He shall thereafter determine the taxable income of the assessee for each assessment year independently, on the basis of the verified material and in accordance with law.

The quantum proceedings for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 shall be adjudicated first. Thereafter, the penalty proceedings under sections 271A and 270A for assessment year 2018-19 shall be decided afresh. While doing so, the Assessing Officer shall consider the outcome of the quantum proceedings, the books and audit reports produced by the assessee and the separate statutory conditions

All factual and legal contentions of both parties are left open. The Assessing Officer shall provide a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing the fresh orders. The assessee is directed to file the complete evidence and explanations within the time permitted by the Assessing Officer and to cooperate with the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Accordingly, Grounds Nos. 1 and 2 in each appeal are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Ground No. 3 in each appeal is general in nature and does not require separate adjudication.

In the result all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.