RAJLAXMI JEWELLERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(4), BHOPAL

ITA 1101/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 October 2026AY 2017-1819 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided an affidavit and the Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative did not oppose the condonation application. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted. The Tribunal observed that the impugned assessment order was passed under Section 144 and had not been adjudicated on merits, nor had the CIT(A)'s order considered the merits. The Tribunal desired that the total income be computed and assessed on real-time basis according to law. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits (de novo). The assessee was directed to cooperate fully with the Assessing Officer and provide all necessary information and attend hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajlaxmi Jewellers, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144/144B, computing the total income at Rs. 35,80,756/-, a significant variation from the Rs. 30,756/- declared in the return. This variation was primarily due to a cash deposit of Rs. 35,50,000/- in the assessee's SBI account during the demonetization period in FY 2016-17. The AO noted non-compliance by the assessee regarding this cash deposit. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal on the grounds of limitation, finding that the appeal was filed with a delay of 131 days and the assessee had not shown sufficient cause for the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the grounds of limitation, failing to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal, as per Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they were unaware of the assessment order being passed until a penalty notice was served, and immediately thereafter, they took steps to file the appeal. They contended that this lack of awareness constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee also highlighted that the original assessment order was ex-parte and the merits of the case had not been considered by the lower authorities. They relied on the death of the father, a partner, leading to the son taking over responsibilities, which contributed to the ex-parte order and subsequent delay. Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on the impugned assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmities. They argued that the assessee was non-compliant throughout and had not provided a bonafide explanation for the delay, and therefore, the second appeal should not be allowed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 246A,Section 249(3),Section 249(2),Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

For Respondent: Shri Binay Kumar Rai, Sr.DR
Hearing: 16.10.2026Pronounced: 22.10.2026

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M:

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ hereinafter 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 No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079627127(1)

dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned

order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2017-18 and the RAJLAXMI JEWELLERS ITA No. 1101/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18

corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. 2. Factual Matrix

2.

1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s 147 rws 144/144B of the Act, the tota

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →