SACHIN PRAKASHRAO BOMBLE,NAGPUR vs. ITO,WARD 3(2), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 779/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 May 2026AY 2017-20184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee did not effectively participate before the CIT(A) and therefore, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a significant delay. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 23,84,000/- as unexplained money due to cash deposits during demonetization. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR ‘SMC’ BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Hearing: 11.03.2026Pronounced: 07.05.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 15.12.2023 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 15.11.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record exparte qua assessee.

3.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 659 days. Assessee has filed an 2 Sachin Prakashrao Bomble

affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration of the said reasons, I find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit and that the delay is not intentional.

Therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) I hereby condone the delay of 659 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

Brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are that the assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 21.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,81,850/-. Case processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, case selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason that the assessee has deposited cash during the demonetization period. Notice u/s.142(1) served upon the assessee requiring the assessee to submit the bank statements and in response the assessee submitted the bank statements showing the cash deposits made in various bank accounts. On due consideration of the bank statements and the submissions made by the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act making addition of Rs.23,84,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act.

5.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then failed to appear on the given dates of hearing and ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution,

3 Sachin Prakashrao Bomble

without discussing anything on merits of the case. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal contending that the assessee’s detailed reply dated 14.11.2019 in response to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act has not been considered by the ld. Assessing Officer while making the addition of cash deposit and further ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds raised in Form No.35. 6. Having heard the ld. DR and perusing the available material on record, I find that assessee in the instant case has not participated in the proceedings before First Appellate Authority effectively and has not filed any submissions to substantiate its case. Owing to non-participation, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. By way of grounds of appeal, assessee is contending that ld. Assessing Officer has not considered the detailed reply filed by it and made the impugned addition of cash deposit and ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the same without adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised in Form No.

35.

Considering the above contentions raised by the assessee and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the documents /evidences/submissions to be filed by the assessee and pass speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to update email and contact details on the 4 Sachin Prakashrao Bomble

ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 07th day of May, 2026. (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Nagpur/ दिन ांक / Dated : 07th May, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, न गपुर SMC बेंच, 4. न गपुर / DR, ITAT, “Nagpur SMC Bench, Nagpur ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →