RAGHAV SETHI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

ITA 1039/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 September 2026AY 2016-1722 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2016-17, finding that "sufficient cause" was shown. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's non-compliance during assessment was due to compelling business circumstances and that the non-participation in the first appeal was partly due to the Covid-19 period. The Tribunal observed that the assessee now sincerely wants to pursue the case on merits and is willing to provide all necessary details and material before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the "Impugned Order" and remanded the case back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on a denovo basis. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order on merits, and the assessee was directed to cooperate with the revenue authorities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The same order was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 1040/IND/2025 for AY 2018-19, also condoning a 6-day delay in filing the first appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Raghav Sethi, filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 95,50,000 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating cash in hand of Rs. 96,06,108 as unexplained. The assessee's return of income for AY 2016-17 was filed on 31.03.2017, after the demonetization of 08.11.2016. The AO issued notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1), and a show-cause notice under Section 144 due to non-compliance and lack of explanation regarding the cash in hand. The assessee provided a partial submission but failed to comply with subsequent summons and requests for details. The AO confirmed the addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal, noting the assessee's non-compliance with multiple notices. The assessee then filed a second appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT for AY 2016-17 should be condoned, considering the assessee's claim of a transition phase and the need for substantial justice, versus the revenue's stance that sufficient opportunities were given. 2. Whether the "Impugned Assessment Order" and the "Impugned Order" passed by the CIT(A) are legal and valid, given the assessee's non-compliance during assessment and appellate proceedings, and whether the matter should be remanded for denovo adjudication. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal was due to a transition phase and not intentional or deliberate. Substantial justice should triumph, and the assessee has a prima facie case. - The assessee could not fully comply with the assessment proceedings due to compelling business circumstances. - Non-compliance with notices before the CIT(A) was partly due to the Covid-19 period. - The CIT(A) granted partial relief, but the assessee wishes to pursue the appeal diligently to demonstrate the merits of the case. - The assessee undertakes to be participative and compliant before the CIT(A) and will not seek adjournments on flimsy grounds. Revenue's Contentions: - Sufficient opportunities were given by the first appellate authority, including post-Covid-19 hearings. - The Tribunal should take an appropriate call on the issue of delay based on the law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 253,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI & SHRI ARVIND SONI

For Appellant: CA & Sh
Hearing: 07.09.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.1039/Ind/2025
ITA No. 1040/IND/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Paresh M. Joshi, JM:

I. ITA No:- 1039/IND/2025 = AY 2016-17

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

bearing Number:- ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2025-26 /

Raghav Sethi ITA No. 1039 & 1040/Ind/2025 AY-2016-17 & 2018-19

1079562595 (1) dated 13.08.2025 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 2016-

17 and the correspond

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 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →