BALRAM,INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), INDORE, INDORE

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

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 second

appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056410691(1) dated 22.09.2023

passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant assessment

year is 2012-13 and the corresponding previous year period is

from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012.

2.1 That as and by way of an “ Assessment order” made u/s

144/147 of the Act, the total income of the assessee was

computed & assessed at Rs. 21,77,450/-[rounded off].

That the aforesaid “Assessment order” is dated 16.12.2019

which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned Assessment

Order”.

2.2 The assessee along with two other persons had purchased

land for Rs. 70,32,500/- & had paid Rs. 4,39,535/- as stamp &

other charges in financial year 2011-12 basis AIR Infromation.

The assessee had not filed Return of Income. The sources

therefore were not ascertainable.

2.3 A notice dated 26.03.2019 u/s 148 of the Act was issued

to the assessee by speed post. Notice(s) u/s 142(1) dated

25.07.2019 & 26.07.2019 along with questionnaire was too issued to the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1)/129 dated 18.11.2019

was too issued for 25.11.2019.

2.4 The assessee vide reply dated 11.09.2019 & 12.12.2019

made submissions, the share of the assessee was estimated at

Rs. 24,89,345/-. No return of Income was filed in response to

Notice u/s 148.

2.5 It is recorded in the “Impugned Assessment Order” that

the assessee vide reply dated 12.09.2019 submitted that in

respect of the land purchased in the AY 2012-13 which was a

Joint purchase for Rs. 74,72,035/- his share is valued at Rs.

24,90,678/- with registry charges. The sources of such

purchase of land was Land Acquisition Award amount of Rs.

21,18,991/- & Kisan Credit Card/Mortgage loan of Rs.

2,97,342/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 73,341/- was sourced

from milk sale & agricultural income. The copy of Award

Certificate, S.B A/c passbook, loan a/c passbook photocopy was

claimed to have been filed.

2.6 The Ld. AO in the “Impugned Assessment Order” did not find the explanation of the assessee (supra) as acceptable one. He observed as under which is reproduced by us as below :-

"करदाता �वारा �दये गया उपरो�त �ल�खत जवाब �वीकार करने यो�य नह�ं है। करदाता �वारा �ल�खत जयाब के साथ �दये गये ब�क खाते को देखने से �प�ट है �क वष� के दौरान उ�त खाते म� �दनांक 17.03.212 को �पये 3,15,200/- क� ��व�ठ� ह� �े�डट क� गयी है और �पये 3,15,000/-ह� 20.03.2012 को कैलाश के खाता कं. 8824101110001603 म� �ासफर �कये गये है इसके अलावा �कसी अ�य �यि�त के खाते म� ब�क आफ इं�डया �समरोल �ांच के खाते से �ांसफर होना नह�ं �दखाया गया है। इससे �प�ट है �क करदा�ा �वारा केवल �पये 3,15,200/- क� रा�श ह� जमीन खर�दने के �लए कैलाश को द� गयी है। करदाता के ब�क आफ इं�डया के खाता का अवलोकन करने पर पाया �क करदाता के ब�क खाते म� �पये 6,00,000 �दनांक 17.01.2012 को नगद� म� जमा होना बताया गया है िजसके संबंध म� उ�ह�ने �दनांक 12.12.2019 के �ल�खत जवाब म� बताया है �क उ�त नगद� उनके �वारा �कार�पय� कार बेचने से �ा�त रा�श थी तथा �दनांक 18.01.2012 को �पये 07,93,800/- का ऋण �ा�त हुआ है इन दोनो रा�शय� से करदाता �वारा �. 12,87,381 क� नयी कार खर�दना बताया गया है। करदाता �वारा बताया गया है �क उनके �वारा अ�य �व�नयोजन क� रा�श रा�य सरकार से भू�म अज�न के �लए उ�ह� अदा क� गयी थी उसी म� से यह �व�नयोजन �कया गया था परंतु करदाता �वारा �दये गये भू-अज�न के �नण�य �दनांक 18.10.2013 को देखने से �प�ट है �क करदाता को �व�ीय वष� 2011-12 के दौरान कोई भी रा�श भू-अज�न के �लए �ा�त नह�ं हुई है । करदाता �वारा यह भी बताया गया �क उनके �वारा दूध बेचने एवं खेती करने से हुई बचत से भी इस जमीन खर�द� म� उनके �वारा कुछ �व�नयोजन �कया गया परंतु करदाता �वारा इस संबंध म� कोई भी �माण �नधा�रण ��कया के दौरान ��तुत नह�ं �कये है इस�लए करदा�ा �वारा �दये गये जवाब को �वीकार नह�ं �कया जा सकता है। चूं�क करदाता �नधा�रण ���या के दौरान खर�द� गयी जमीन म� �कये गये �व�नयोजन �. 24,90,678/ म� �. 3,15,200 के ��ोत ह� बताने म� सफल हुआ है। अतः खर�द� गयी जमीन �. 21,77,478/-�व�नयोजन के ��ोत �प�ट नह�ं होने के कारण आयकर अ�ध�नयम क� धारा 69 के तहत 21,77,478/- क� आय �नधा�रत क� जाती है।"

2.7 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “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 1st appeal of the Assessee on the grounds & reasons specified therein. The core grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the 1st appeal were as under:-

"4. NON-ATTENDANCE: In this case, it is seen that the appeal was filed on 16/01/2020 and the first notice of hearing was issued on 30/12/2020, fixing the date of hearing on or before 14/01/2021, but on the appointed date, no one attended or furnished submission. Also, several opportunities of hearing were given to the appellant as narrated below:-

Sr. Date of Notice Date of Particulars No. issued hearing 1 30/12/2020 14/01/2021 Notice issued, but no response from appellant. 2 24/12/2021 10/01/2022 Notice issued, but no response from appellant. 3 16/08/2023 31/08/2023 Notice issued, but no response from appellant. 4 13/09/2023 18/09/2023 Notice issued, but no response from appellant.

As can be seen from the above table the appellant was

given ample opportunities by way of notices issued as

narrated above. However, the appellant/AR has refrained

from attending the appellate proceedings and has not

furnished any submission.

6.2 SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT: The appellant has filed

appeal with grounds of appeal No separate submission is

uploaded despite many opportunities were given to the

appellant YOME TAX DEPARTMENT 6.3 DECISION:- The Statement of Facts, Grounds of appeal

and the material on record have been considered.

During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has

not filed any written submission. In absence of the written

submission and evidence, it remained to be unexplained

as to how the AO's order is erroneous. Now in the grounds

of appeal, the appellant contended that the demand raised

by the A.O. were not legal. The appellant failed to explain

what legal infirmity the assessment order suffers. On

perusal of the assessment order, it was found that the

case was reopened after obtaining prior approval of the

PCIT-2, Indore. The notice u/s 148 was issued within

prescribed time limit and was served upon the appellant.

The appellant's submission was considered by the A.O.

and relief was granted as per explainable evidence was

filed. The order was passed within the time limit.

Therefore, in absence of any evidence, I find no illegality

in the order passed by the A.O. and the contention raised

by the appellant is hereby rejected. If the appellant claims that he is eligible for any claim he should have furnished

supporting documents. The appellate proceedings are first

line of remedy to those who think that the injustice has

been done by the AO. However, the appellant failed to

avail the same by non-complying. During the appellate

proceedings, the appellant has not availed of the

opportunities given. Therefore, it is assumed that the

appellant is not interested in pursuing his own appeal.

Moreover, the appellant failed to bring on records any

facts or documents which can explain how the order of the

AO is erroneous.

6.4 In the case of Anil Goel Vs CIT, [2008] 306 ITR 212

(Punjab & Haryana), the Hon'ble High Court held as under:

"4. It is thus obvious on the plain language of section

250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly

fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with

notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had

ample opportunity to make his submissions by

appearing in person or through authorised representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen

hearings, no one had put in appearance nor any

justifiable reason for adjournment was given.

reasons in support of order passed by CIT(A) would

not amount to committing any illegality because the

CIT(A) has adopted the reasoning advanced by the

Assessing Officer and has upheld his order. The

judgment of this Court, in the case of Popular

Engineering Co. v. ITAT [2001] 248 (TR 577, has been

rightly relied upon wherein it has been observed that

elaborate reasons need not be recorded by the CIT(A)

as has been done by the Assessing Officer. The

reasons are required to be clear and explicit indicating

that the authority has considered the issue in

controversy. If the appellate/revisional authority has

to affirm such an order it is not required to give

separate reasons which may be required in case the order is to be reversed by the appellate/revisional

authority."

6.5 Accordingly, I agree with the reasons given by the AO and

confirm the addition made by the AO. The Ground Nos. 1

is hereby DISMISSED.

2.8 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned

Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this

Tribunal & has raised the following grounds of appeal in the

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

“1. The Id CIT(A) was not justified in ex-parte dismissing the

appeal of the appellant, without deciding the appeal on

merits, and that a fair and meaningful opportunity was not available to the appellant to present his case.

Rs. 2 21,77,478/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

the grounds of appeal.”

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

16.04.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the Assessee

appeared before us & inter alia contended that the “Impugned

Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It is in the violation of

the principles of natural justice. It therefore deserves to be set

aside.

3.2 It was next contended that the registry has pointed out the

delay of 610 days in filling the instant second appeal. It was

submitted that the “Impugned Order” is dated 22.09.2023 and

the instant appeal ought to have been filed within 60 days as

stipulated by the law. A condonation of delay application along

with the affidavit filed on 20.02.2026 is placed on record of this

Tribunal, which is reproduced by us as below :-

Per contra the Ld. DR stated that in view of the condonation of

delay application which is supported by the affidavit, the Dept. of

Income Tax leaves the issue to the wisdom of this tribunal. We

have gone through the application for condonation and Affidavit

in support thereof & have heard both the sides. We are,

therefore, of the considered opinion that sufficient cause is

shown by the assessee & even the Department has not rebutted

the contents of the application for condonation of delay. Under

these facts, we condone the delay & admit the appeal.

3.3 The Ld. AR then submitted that the “Impugned

Assessment Order” is under section 144 of the Act. The Ld. AR

invited our attention to the internal page 1 of the “Impugned

Assessment Order” & stated that at the bottom there is a

reference of two replies of the assessee to the Ld.AO. Addition

u/s 69 has been made as unexplained investment. The important

points from the “Impugned Assessment Order” were read out by

the Ld. AR which were noted down by us. Our attention was

invited to the page 17 of the P.B. which was an extract of the

passbook of the assessee with BOI A/c No. 882410100005625 Simrol, Mhow, Indore Branch which shows credit entry of Rs.

21,18,991.00. Our attention was invited to P18 to the amounts

withdrawn in cash [Dates not clear to us]. Our attention was

then invited to page 85 of the P.B. [form 26AS] wherein the

deductor shown is “Sub Divisional Officer & Competent

Authority Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow” showing a payment of Rs.

23,89,750.00/- against which TDS deducted is Rs. 270759/.

Transaction date is 28.06.2010 & date of booking is 16.10.2010.

Our attention was also invited to Page 22 to 25 which was sale

agreement. It’s terms & conditions were explained. Rs. 5 lakh

was paid & remaining was to be paid at later dates. In so far as

the order of Ld. CIT(A) was concerned, it was submitted that

same was an ex parte order due to non prosecution. Per contra,

the Ld. DR for the revenue stated that new material is placed on

record which amounts to additional evidences which were not

before the lower authorities. The Ld. AO has rejected the

explanation of the assessee which findings are clear. In rejoinder

argument, the Ld. AR submitted that one more opportunity be

afforded to the assessee so that evidences now filed in the Paper

book like bank statements, documents pertaining to land purchased, acquisition records & awards, Registry documents,

purchase documents can be placed before the Ld. AO for proper

inquiry & verification. The hearing was concluded & closed.

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 & after hearing & upon

examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR

canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that in the

“Impugned Assessment Order” basis reply filed by the assessee

his explanation on sources were rejected on examination of the

documents so presented. The “Impugned Order” was an ex parte

one. Now basis paper book, new documents, evidences, material

are brought on record which were not available before lower

authorities. Under these facts & circumstances, we set aside the “Impugned Order” & remand the case back to the file of the Ld.

AO on de novo basis. We direct assessee to place before the Ld.

AO all evidences, documents with regard to sources of money/

cash which was utilized for purchase of the land in question. We

simultaneously direct that upon production of these documents

as listed in Paper book & so also others which would be

requisitioned by Ld. AO from the assessee to be examined in

details & verified. The Ld. AO will be at full & complete liberty to

adjudge & adjudicate the case afresh & then shall pass a

speaking & reasoned order on merits of the case. The assessee is

directed to fully co-operate with the department.

4.4 In view of the premises drawn up by us, we set aside the

impugned order & remand the case back to the Ld. AO with directions

as aforesaid.

5 Order

5.1 In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

remand back to the file of the Ld. AO.

5.2. The appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Pronounced in open court on 24. 04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore Dated : 24 /04/2026 SN

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

Page 19 of 19