SHIV SHANKAR BHATT, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 398/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 July 2026AY 2011-128 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the interest of substantive justice and the lack of proper representation before the lower appellate authority, the matters were remanded back.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed with a significant delay of 311 days. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals on merits due to the assessee's lack of proper submissions and representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned and if the matters should be remanded for proper adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Yash Dhariwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 14.05.2025 for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the very outset, it is noted that these appeals are time barred by 311 days. Explaining the reasons for such delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed condonation petitions a/w. affidavit. The relevant contents of the said affidavit are extracted as follows:

3 Shiv Shankar Bhatt Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.398 & 399/RPR/2026

4 Shiv Shankar Bhatt Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.398 & 399/RPR/2026

5 Shiv Shankar Bhatt Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.398 & 399/RPR/2026

3.

Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR objected to the condonation of delay. However, he could neither place on record any evidence to suggest any malafide or deliberate conduct on the part of the assessee for causing such delay nor could file any counter affidavit.

4.

That as per record, there is no malafide or deliberate conduct established on the part of the assessee for causing such delay. Therefore, respectfully following the dictate of Higher Forum in the cases viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the delay of 311 days involved in these appeals is condoned.

5.

Coming to the merits of the matter, in ITA No.398/RPR/2026, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has held and observed as follows: “5.2 During the appellate proceedings the appellant did not make proper reply. He has only informed that all documents were taken by the ACB and he had nothing to say. To seek further information a remand report was called for from the AO. In response, vide a communication dated 06.12.2023 the AO furnished the requisite report. But he has not made any written submission rather just

6 Shiv Shankar Bhatt Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.398 & 399/RPR/2026

attached a list of movable and immovable assets purchased by the appellant in his own name and in the name of other persons including Madhurima Shukla. Since the appellant has not made any submission from his side, I am not inclined to provide any relief to him. Accordingly, addition of Rs.21,38,500/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act on account of undisclosed investment in immovable property is hereby sustained and upheld. Ground no. 1 of the appeal is dismissed and not allowed. 6. Ground no. 2 of the appeal becomes infructuous as the appellant did not file any additional or amended ground of appeal during the appellate proceedings. 7. In result, the present appeal of the appellant is dismissed and not allowed.”

6.

Coming to the merits of the matter, in ITA No.399/RPR/2026, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has held and observed as follows:

“5.2 During the appellate proceedings the appellant did not make proper reply. He has only informed that all documents were taken by the ACB and he had nothing to say. To seek further information a remand report was called for from the AO. In response, vide a communication dated 06.12.2023 the AO furnished the requisite report. But he has not made any written submission rather just attached a list of movable and immovable assets purchased by the appellant in his own name and in the name of other persons including Madhurima Shukla. Since the appellant has not made any submission from his side, I am not inclined to provide any relief to him. Accordingly, addition of Rs.38,87,300/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act on account of undisclosed investment in immovable property is hereby sustained and upheld. Ground no. 1 of the appeal is dismissed and not allowed. 6. Ground no. 2 of the appeal becomes infructuous as the appellant did not file any additional or amended ground of appeal during the appellate proceedings. 7. In result, the present appeal of the appellant is dismissed and not allowed.”

7 Shiv Shankar Bhatt Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.398 & 399/RPR/2026

7.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the time of hearing before the First Appellate Authority, there was no representation properly done for and on behalf of the assessee by erstwhile counsel. That though the erstwhile counsel had written the facts, however, had not uploaded any submissions regarding grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed for one final opportunity to represent the matters on merits before the First Appellate Authority for complying principles of natural justice.

8.

The Ld. Sr. DR did not object for remanding the matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.

9.

Having heard the submissions of the parties herein and considering the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT, Central Circle-2, Naya Raipur, IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025, dated 20.03.2025 & (ii) Collector Mining, Kondagaon Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), ITA Nos. 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776 & 777/RPR/2025, dated 12.03.2026, in the interest of substantive justice, the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC are set-aside and the matters are remanded back to its file as per directions mentioned in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements.

8 Shiv Shankar Bhatt Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.398 & 399/RPR/2026

10.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 30th day of July, 2026.

Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 30th July, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. Samiran आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Bera, Sr. PS, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur ITAT, Raipur Digitally signed by Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.07.30 10:14:26 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →