LATE SMT. GHEESI BAI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MEHARBAN SINGH),INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(3), INDORE, INDORE

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 a

second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearingNumber:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071370637(1)

dated 25.10.2024 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 2017-18 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to

31.03.2017.

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

144 of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was

computed & assessed at Rs. 29,49,000/-. That the aforesaid

assessment order bears No ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-

20/1018305125(1) & that the same is dated 25.09.2019

which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned

Assessment Order”.

2.2 As per the information available with the department of

income Tax it was noticed that during the period of

demonetization from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, the assessee

had made cash deposits in Axis Bank A/C No.

915010016190876 & 914010055080942 Bicholi Hapsi,

Indore. In pursuance there of a notice u/s 142(1) dated

12.12.2017 was issued to the assessee which was served on

13.12.2017. The assessee was called upon to file a return

income for AY 2017-18, however the assessee failed to comply with the notice. Regular ITR too was not filed.

Notice(s) dated 12.12.2017, 03.09.2019 U/s 142(1) too, were

not complied with by the assessee. A show cause notice

dated 16.09.2019 u/s 144 of the Act was too non-complied

with.

2.3 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 first appeal of the

assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core

grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were

under:-

“4. During the appellate proceedings, several notices u/s 250 were issued giving opportunities of being heard to the appellant, which were duly delivered upon the appellant through registered email 'spatelji1978@gmail.com, which is also the email given in Form 35 by the appellant for communication. No response is received till date. The particulars of notices issued are as under: Sr. Date of Date of Remarks No. notice hearing 1 07.01.2021 01.01.2021 No response received. 2 12.02.2021 01.03.2021 No response received. 3 22.08.2024 29.08.2024 No response received. 4 30.09.2024 07.10.2024 No response received. 4.1 In view of the above, it appears that the non-appearance to notices is deliberate as all the notices have been duly served upon the appellant on the registered email account. No response has been received from the appellant till date. It is reasonable to infer from the continued non-compliance that the appellant is not serious to pursue its appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively prosecuting it. Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Hofkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991)(38 ITD 320), Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is not Interested in prosecuting its appeal. In view of continuous non-compliance by the appellant, the appeal is disposed ex-parte based on merits of the case.

In Ground Nos.3 and 4, the appellant has contested the 6. addition of Rs.29,49,000/- made by the AO u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

6.1 Decision: I have carefully considered the relevant and material facts on record, in respect of this ground of appeal, as brought out in the assessment order. During the assessment proceedings on perusal of statement of bank account maintained by the appellant, AO observed that the appellant had made cash deposits of Rs.29,49,000/- during the demonetization period (i.e. from 09.12.2016 to 30.12.2016) in specified bank notes (SBN). Thereafter, statutory notice u/s.142(1) was issued and served on the appellant requiring her to file the return of income for the relevant year which was not complied with by the appellant. Further, due to change in incumbent, appellant was given one more opportunity by way of issue of notice u/s.142(1) on 12.12.2017 and a final show cause notice dated 16.09.2019 was issued to the appellant in response to which neither any body attended nor any written reply was furnished Since the appellant had not submitted any reply to the show cause notice, AO held that the appellant had no explanation to offer regarding the nature and source of the above cash deposit, AO treated the amount of Rs.29,49,000/- as unexplained and unaccounted income in the hands of the appellant u/s.69A and also taxed the same at the rates specified u/s. 115BBE of the Act.

6.2.1 It is further noted and as detailed in preceding para above that during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any evidence in support of its grounds of appeal. However, the appellant has not furnished any written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal. In the statement of facts, the appellant has contended that she is an old widow lady aged nearly 72 years, is an illiterate person and is purely an agriculturist. She has further contended that she is deriving her entire income from carrying out agricultural operations on the various land owned by her and does not have any other source of income However, the appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim made in the statement of facts. The onus lies on the appellant to support any claim by bringing in cogent documentary evidence but the appellant has not even filed a written submission in support of its grounds of appeal despite several opportunities given as detailed in the preceding paras, In absence of any written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal, I have no basis to take a contrary view in the appellate proceedings as I have no reason to interfere with the assessment order. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order of Assessing Officer. Therefore, Addition of Rs. 29,49,000/- is hereby sustained on merits. Accordingly, Grounds No.3 and 4 are dismissed.

2.4 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 from No.

36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:-

“1(a). That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant and without considering the material fact that the notices, claimed to have been issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) to the appellant for hearing, got never served upon the appellant.

1(b). That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte, without considering and appreciating the material fact that much before the passing of the impugned appellate order on 25-10-2024,Smt. Gheesi Bai, who is being represented by the present appellant as her legal heir, had already passed away on 10-10-2023 and further, the notices dated 22-08-2024 and 30-09-2024 could not come to the knowledge of the appellant. 1(c). That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 without considering the material fact that the Assessing Officer had not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits of the case. 3(i). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.29,49,000/- made by the AO in the appellant's income on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank account by treating the same as unexplained money under s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without considering and appreciating the material fact that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the appellant was not found to be in possession of any unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and therefore, in the case of the appellant, the provisions of s.69A could not have validly been invoked and in absence of maintenance of any books of account, even the provisions of s.68 could not have been invoked. 3(ii). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.29,49,000/- made by the AO in the appellant's income without properly considering and appreciating the material fact that the appellant's only source of income was from carrying out the agricultural activities and the entire impugned cash deposits were made by her/her husband in the bank accounts either out of the agricultural income so derived from carrying out the agricultural operations or from the cash withdrawals made from the saving bank accounts only. 4. That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter or amend the foregoing ground of appeal as and when considered necessary.”

on 15.04.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the

assessee appeared before us & interalia contended that the

“Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not proper. It

therefore deserves to be set aside. It was next contended

that the registry of this Tribunal has pointed out the delay

of 249 days in filing the instant second appeal. It was

submitted that the “Impugned Order” is dated 25.10.2024

& instant appeal ought to have been filed within 60 days

however the instant appeal was filed on 05.09.2025. A

condonation of delay application along with an affidavit in

support is placed on the record of this Tribunal. With regard

to delay it was submitted that the assessee expired on

10.10.2023 & the “Impugned Order” is dated 25.10.2024.

First appeal against the “Impugned assessment Order” was

filed on 18.12.2019 in form no. 35. In the column whether

the notices/communications may be sent on mail. The Late

deceased assessee had answered “NO”. The deceased was a

old lady & was living in a village “Kanadia” Indore Dist. She

was not computer savvy nor well versed with the electronic media/means. Even the e-mail id in the form 35 did not

belonged to her which was spatelji1978@gmail.com. It

belonged to her acquaintance Shri shamshad patel. Notice

in the form 35 was required to be sent at 595, Kanadia road,

village Kanadia, Indore MP. On 30.07.2025 the counsel of

the deceased logged in her account on the portal for some

notice(s) related to penalty then only it could be gathered

that the “Impugned Order” dated 25.10.2024 was already

passed against her. The period for filling an appeal had

lapsed on 24.12.2024 / 30.12.2024 as “Impugned Order”

came to the knowledge only on 30.07.2025.

Hence the delay of 253 days. An affidavit dated 04.09.2025

in support is placed on record. On merits it was stated that

the assessee has meritorious case too. The Ld. DR for the

revenue has left the issue on “condonation part” on the

best wisdom of this Tribunal. After perusing the condonation

of delay application, affidavit in support & after hearing both

the parties, we condone the delay & appeal is admitted as

sufficient cause is shown. There was no deliberate delay &

the intention was bonafide one.

3.2 The Ld. AR the submitted that the legal heir Meharban

Singh has filed the instant appeal being the only son of the

deceased assessee. The late assessee was an agriculturist &

her income was from the agriculture activities only. She was

not required to file her return of income. There was non

representation before the Ld. AO & the Ld. CIT(A). However

now a fresh opportunity is requested before the Ld. AO for

which the Ld. AR has undertaken to file all the papers,

documents so that correct income could be computed basis

law. Per contra Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that

revenue has no objection if this Tribunal deem fit in it’s

wisdom to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for

correct computation of Income basis law & on merits.

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 & further

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

DR canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that

the “Impugned Assessment Order” is under section 144 of

the Act & and the matter could not be adjudicated &

adjudged basis merits. Even the “Impugned Order” is not

on Merits. This Tribunal desires that the total income of the

assessee should be computed & assessed on the real time

basis exigible tax, in accordance with law by following due

process under the Act. This Tribunal also expects the

assessee to be complaint & should cooperate with the

Department as & when notices, etc. are issued. In brief this

tribunal desires meritorious disposal of both the “Impugned

Assessment Order” as well as “Impugned Order”. The

Assessee’s legal heir cooperation assumes importance. The

assessee legal heir cannot go in slumber mode. This

Tribunal does not appreciate sloth & inefficiencies on part

of assessee’s legal heir. In the result we are of the

considered opinion that the “Impugned Order” should be

set aside & the matter should be remanded back to the file of Ld.AO for passing a fresh order on the merits of the case. It

is the expectation of this Tribunal that the assessee’s legal

heir would now give full & complete details including the

latest e-mail of his and his counsel where the notice(s) could

be served effectively by the department. The legal heir is

directed to attend hearings & to fill the reply & details as is

sought by the Ld. AO within time.

4.4 In view of the above, we set aside the “Impugned Order”

& remand the case back to the file of the Ld. AO who shall

now pass a speaking & well-reasoned order basis merit of the

Case.

5 Order

5.1 In the final analysis the “Impugned Order” is set aside

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

5.2. The appeal of the 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 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 COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 12 of 12