ASUDAMAL KOTWANI,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KATNI

ITA 254/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur25 September 2026AY 2018-197 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the exclusion period for limitation as directed by the Supreme Court and should not have dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of delay. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the issue of addition on account of cash purchases was identical to a previous decision in the assessee's own case, which was decided in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 115-day delay without adjudicating the merits. The delay was attributed to the assessee's lack of education and unfamiliarity with e-proceedings, with the appeal being filed within the extended limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court. The addition of Rs. 3,00,595/- was made on account of alleged cash purchases from a third party.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation without considering the Supreme Court's directions on exclusion periods, and whether the addition on account of cash purchases is sustainable when presumptive income under Section 44AD was accepted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 44AD,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri K. P. Deewani, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. CIT(DR) - 1

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 22.07.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s 250 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law.

2.

The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal by not condoning nominal delay of 115 days in filing appeal.

3.

The learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay when the issue in dispute is covered in favour of assessee by its own decision of Hon'ble Juri ictional ITAT, Jabalpur Bench, J

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →