MOHAMMED OMER SIDDIQUI,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Per Paresh M. Joshi, JM:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961, [ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a

second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearing No :-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078905133(1)

dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the

Page 1 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 Act which is hereinafter referred as the “Impugned Order”.

The Relevant Assessment Year is 2011-12 and the

corresponding Previous Period is from 01/04/2010 to

31/03/2011.

2.1 That as & by way of an Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3)

RWS 147 of the Act the total Income of the Assessee was

computed & Assessed at Rs 81,80,667/- as exigible to Tax.

The ROI was at Rs 3,27,040/- u/s 148 of the Act. An addition

of Rs 78,53,627/- was made by virtue of Para 3 of the aforesaid

order as and by way of an aggregate amount of RS 78,53,627/- in

the Assessee’s bank account with the SBI & the Axis Bank [RS

45,80,000/- + Rs 32,73,627/- + Rs 78,53,627/-] which

amounts could not be explained by the Assessee with the

supporting documentary evidences. The amount thus was

treated as unexplained one. That the aforesaid order of the

Assessment is dated 27.12.2018 which is hereinafter referred to

as the “Impugned Assessment Order”.

Page 2 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 2.2 That the Assessee was found to have some nexus basis

Joint Venture Agreement between M/s Entellus Builders &

Developers [EBD] & one signature colonizers. The Dept had

some prior information in this regard. The Assessee was a Non

filer originally. Notice(s) u/s 148, 143(2) & 142(1) were served

upon the Assessee from time to time which are all recorded in the

Impugned Assessment Order. The Assessee stand as recorded

in the Impugned Assessment Order is that he had received

Rs 4 lakh on 24.03.2011 from signature colonizers & that too

as “Security”. The core stand was Assessee had not sold any

immovable property in respect of Joint Ventures Agreement with

various parties. Security amount received therefore cannot be

treated as Income of the Assessee.

2.3 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned

Assessment Order” prefers the first Appeal u/s 246A of the

Act before the Ld CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has

dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee on the grounds & the

reasons specified therein. The core grounds & the reasons are

stated as under: -

Page 3 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 “3.3 Ground no. 4 of the present appeal raised by the appellant

is consequential in nature.

During the course of appellant proceedings the appellant

had not filed any written submissions or documents to support

his grounds. Since, there is no response from the appellant and

also in absence of any submission from the appellant, it is

presumed that the appellant has nothing to say/submit in

support of his claim in the present appeal and therefore, the

action of the AO in computing the income as per the provisions of

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby upheld.

At the outset, that in the situation as obtained in the

instant case, as evidently seen from the above, this appeal is

liable to be dismissed in terms of the ratio of the judgements of

the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts including

the Hon'ble Apex Court which held in CIT v. B. N.

Bhattarcharjee and Another (10) CTR 354) that an appeal

means an effective appeal and that to "prefer an appeal" would

mean effectively prosecuting an appeal "Purposefully and

constructively interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than

formally filing it but effectively having entered the fray.

Page 4 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 It is pertinent to add here that laws assist those who are vigilant

and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is

embodied in the well-known maxim "Vigilantibus non

dormientibusjurasubveniunt". It means equity comes to the aid

of the vigilant and not the slumbering. In all actions, suits and

other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligent and careful

plaintiff is favoured and prejudicial of him who is careless.

Viewed thus, it is presumed that the assessee has no further

cogent reasoning or/and evidence to substantiate the grounds

taken in this impugned appeal. It is trite that the onus is on

person making the claim, and the primary

responsibility/onus/burden for proving the claim made before

the tax authorities (Assessing Officers/Appellate Authorities) lies

with the assessee/assessee. In the present case, the assessee has

not been able to even discharge the primary onus/burden

statutorily & judicially cast upon him to substantiate the claims

made in the grounds of appeal in spite of adequate time and

opportunities given as brought out in the foregoing paras.”

Page 5 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 2.4 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Impugned Order” has preferred the Instant Second Appeal

before us & has raised the following grounds of Appeal in the

Form No: -36 against the Impugned Order which are as under: -

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,

the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by

Assessing Officer in respect of the deposit made by the assessee

in the bank account held with State Bank of India, the amount

being Rs 45,80,000/-, as unexplained investment. The appellant

prays that the addition which is unjustified, arbitrary and bad in

law be directed to be deleted.

the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by

Assessing Officer in respect of the deposit made by the assessee

in the bank account held with Axis Bank, the amount being Rs

32,73,627/-, as unexplained investment. The appellant prays

that the addition which is unjustified, arbitrary and bad in law be

directed to be deleted.

assessment passed by the learned Assessing Officer without

Page 6 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 giving essential details in the order of assessment and without

supplying the reasons recorded for the reopening of the

assessment, is illegal, arbitrary and vitiated in law and hence

should be quashed.

law the learned Assessing Officer was not justified to make

reopening on one ground and to make additions to income on the

other grounds.

ground or grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3 Record of Hearing

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on

09.07.2026 when the Ld. AR appearing for & on the behalf of the

Assessee inter-alia contended that the “Impugned Order” is bad

in law, illegal & not proper. It, therefore, deserves to be Set Aside.

3.2 The Ld AR has placed on the record of this Tribunal a

Paperbook containing Pages 1 to 33.

3.3 The Ld AR then submitted that the registry of this tribunal

has pointed out delay of 46 days. The Impugned Order is dated

Page 7 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 25.07.2025 whereas the second appeal was filed on 15.11.2025

in this tribunal. Date of the service or communication of order is

shown as 10.10.2025 in the Form No 36. The condonation of

delay application along with an affidavit in support is placed on

record seeking condonation of the delay in filling in the Instant

Second Appeal. In brief it was contended that counsel who was

engaged in the first Appeal had informed the Assessee that he

will receive a message on his cellphone from the Income Tax

Dept as & when notice of hearing is issued. However no such

message came to the Assessee, this resulted in non-receipt of

Notice(S) dated 28.06.2023 & again on 04.01.2024. That the

Assessee was served with a message for payment of outstanding

Income Tax demand on Oct 2025 & at that Point of time the

counsel of the Assessee visited the portal & found that an exparte

Impugned Order has being issued against him & thereafter

Second Appeal was filed hence the delay. The Impugned Order

was received on 10.10.2025. An affidavit dated 06.11.2025 is

too placed on record in support of “COD”. Per contra the Ld

DR appearing for the Dept has contended that he leaves the issue

of condonation of delay on the wisdom of this tribunal. After

Page 8 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 perusing the COD & an affidavit in support & further after

hearing both the parties we are of the considered view that

sufficient cause has been shown & accordingly we condone the

delay & admit the appeal.

3.4 The Ld AR then submitted that in so far as the “Impugned

Assessment Order” is concerned only two days time was

granted by the LD AO which time was not sufficient for

making the full compliances. The additions are made of the

amount received by the cheques. In so far the “Impugned Order”

is concerned same is an exparte order. The Ld AR basis PB page

12 contended that “Mohd Sohail” is his brother. Pages 5 to 11

are copies of the relevant bank statements of SBI & Axis Bank.

Our attention was invited to PB Page 12 which is a chart of the

Assessee showing details of large Deposit in SBI A/c & Axis bank

A/c. In SBI A/c there is a chart beginning with date 17.06.2010,

[4 entries dt 17.06.2010 showing cheque payment of Rs

5,32,000.00/-, Rs 4,79,000.00/-, Rs 44,4000.00/- & of Rs

5,45,000.00/- received form “Mohd Sohail Siddiqui” from his

central bank A/c]. Then there is date 23.09.2010 [ 5 entries out

of which 4 showing cheque payment of Rs 6,23,000.00/- & Rs

Page 9 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 6,27,000.00/-, Rs 6,15,000.00/- & Rs 6,35,000.00/- & one cash

entry of Rs 80,000/- received from “Mohd Sohail Siddiqui” from

his central bank of India A/c in so far as entry of Rs 80,000/-

is concerned no source is disclosed]. Aggregate amount in SBI

A/c received from Mohd Sohail Siddiqui is shown as Rs

45,80,000/-. In similar manner Aggregate amount of Rs 25 lakh

[17.03.2011, 21.03.2011 & 26.03.2011] is shown as transferred

from his SBI A/c No: - 10199890738 to Axis Bank A/c. The Ld

AR then invited our attention to PB Pages 19 to 32 which is a

copy of Joint Venture Agreement dt 26.05.2012 entered between

Assessee & his family members in total 5 members & one

signature colonizers & Atlas Builders wherein on Page 27 at

Para 16(3) an amount of Rs 1 lakh is paid to the Assessee on

24.03.2011 by cheque by signature colonizers & on 24.03.2011

yet another amount of RS 3 Lakh is paid to the Assessee on

24.03.2011 by cheque. It was finally submitted that during the

year under consideration only 4 Lakh in aggregate was

received basis Joint Venture Agreement & No sale of land has

taken place. PB Page 33 was relied upon which is a copy of

signature colonizer Ledge A/c for Ummer Siddiqui .It was

Page 10 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 submitted that case of the Assessee is clear. Per contra the Ld DR

appearing for & on the behalf of the Revenue submitted that no

document were filed by the Assessee before Ld AO & reliance was

placed on Page 2 of the “Impugned Assessment Order”. In

rejoinder agreement Ld AR submitted & reiterated that only 2

days time on 24.12.2018 was given & Impugned Assessment

Order was passed on 27.12.2018. The hearing was over and

closed.

4 Observations, Finding and Conclusions

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“Impugned Order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and further

upon examining the rival contentions of the Ld AR and the Ld DR

canvassed before us are of the considered opinion that Impugned

Assessment Order though a biparte order but no reasonable

time was given to the Assessee to set up his case the Ld AR

Page 11 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 has made a grievance & we agree with his submissions.

Requisite Papers & documents now in the PB could not filed

before Ld AO is the core grievance of Ld DR and that we too

concur with his submissions. In so far as the Impugned Order is

concerned same is an exparte order & has simply sustained the

Impugned Assessment Order. We are therefore of the considered

view that Impugned Order should be set aside & remanded back

to the file of Ld AO for Denovo Adjudiction so that real Income on

real time basis could be computed & Assessed basis law. Under

these circumstances we set aside the Impugned Order & remand

the case back to the file of Ld AO on Denovo Basis. We

additionally direct the Assessee to furnish all material

information, documents, evidences, to the Ld AO for due

verification & the Inquiry. We expect that the Assessee would

systematically file all reply & submissions in truthful &

transparent manner so that his Income could be computed &

Assessed basis law by following due process of law. We direct the

Assessee not to seek adjournment on any flimsy grounds & to

cooperate with the Dept. Law help those who are vigilante.

Assessee not to go in slumber mode and to take effective steps for

Page 12 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12 early resolution of his tax dispute. Simultaneously we direct Ld

Ao to pass a speaking & reasoned order on merits as

expeditiously as possible.

4.4 In the Premises drawn up by us we set aside the Impugned

Order as & by way of remand back to the file of Ld AO with

directions as aforesaid.

5 Order

5.1 In the Result “Impunged Order” is set aside as & by way

of remand back to the file of Ld AO on denovo basis with

directions as aforesaid.

5.2 The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in open court on 30.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-p (MANISH BORAD) (PARESH M. JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore िदनांक/Dated : 30/07/2026

Page 13 of 14

Mohammed Omer Siddiqui ITA No. 1012/Ind/2025 AY-2011-12

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 14 of 14