ADARSH VIDHYA MANDIR SAMITI NAGAR,BHARATPUR vs. ITO, WARD-(1), BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1384/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 October 2026AY 2015-169 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delays in filing appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, were to be condoned as there was a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal reasoned that the notices were admittedly sent to a secondary email ID belonging to the assessee's Chartered Accountant, Shri Sunil Mittal. It was the professional obligation of the CA to intimate or forward these notices to the assessee and pursue the appeals. The Tribunal opined that if the delay was caused due to the mistake, negligence, or professional misconduct of the hired CA, the assessee should not suffer, as the assessee has a statutory right to be heard on merits. Therefore, the delay of 390 days in ITA Nos. 1384/JPR/2026 and 1385/JPR/2026, and the delay of 40 days in ITA No. 1386/JPR/2026, before the Ld. CIT(A) were condoned. Consequently, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeals in limine were set aside. The Tribunal also condoned the 15-day delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, for similar reasons. The appeals were remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee on merits. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti, filed three appeals (ITA Nos. 1384 to 1386/JPR/2026) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The assessment years involved are 2015-16, 2015-16, and 2018-19. The appeals before the ITAT were filed with a delay of 15 days each. The primary issue was the NFAC's dismissal of the assessee's appeals in limine due to delays of 390 days, 251 days, and 40 days respectively in filing appeals before the NFAC. The assessee contended that the delays were due to the notices being sent to a secondary email ID of its Chartered Accountant, and that the assessment orders and penalty orders were never served. The Revenue argued that the assessee had hired a CA and could not shift the burden of intimation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, of 390 days (for AY 2015-16), 251 days (for AY 2015-16), and 40 days (for AY 2018-19) was to be condoned on the grounds of 'sufficient cause' as per the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the assessee's income was exempt under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and notices were sent to a secondary email ID? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and condonation of delay). 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not deciding the appeals on merits when the assessee claimed its income was exempt under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and the excess of income over expenditure was minimal, thus arguing no concealment of income? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not quashing the entire assessment when the notice issued under Section 148 was allegedly illegal and bad in law due to approval being taken from JCIT instead of PCIT? 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 52,36,771/- under Section 69A, treating cash deposits as unexplained, when the assessee claimed the source was verifiable tuition fee receipts? 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the addition of bank interest of Rs. 22,574/- and Rs. 35,157/-, ignoring that the assessee had accounted for bank interest in its Income & Expenditure Account? 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not deciding on merit the action of the AO in levying penalty of Rs. 16,25,136/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - Delays in filing appeals before NFAC were due to notices being sent to a secondary email ID (sunilmittalca@gmail.com) instead of the primary one (efileb23@gmail.com), and the assessment/penalty orders were never served. - Income is exempt under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), and the excess income over expenditure is minimal, indicating no concealment. - Notice u/s 148 was illegal as approval was taken from JCIT instead of PCIT. - Cash deposits were out of tuition fees, verifiable from the cash book. - Bank interest was accounted for in the books. - The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) should not have been confirmed without deciding on merits. Revenue's Contentions: - No 'sufficient cause' was shown to condone the delay. - The assessee hired a CA, and the burden cannot be shifted to the Revenue to intimate the outcome of orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 271(1)(c),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRAKASH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No: 1384 to 1386/JPR/2026 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2015-16 & 2018-19

Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti The ITO, Nagar Ward-1, Vs Nadbai Road, Nagar Bharatpur. (Respondent) Bharatpur. PAN: AADAA4254C (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. P.C. Parwal, F.C.A. Revenue Represented: Sh. Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 12-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 22-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellants, Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing aforesaid interconnected appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders all dated 03.02.2026, 04.02.2026 & 03.02.2026 for A.Y. 2015-16, 2015-16 & 2018-19 respectively, on the grounds inter-alia that:- ITA No. 1384/JPR/2026 ( A.Y. 2015-16) “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee by not condoning the delay of 390 days in filing

I.T.A No. 1384 to 1386/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti Nagar

the appeal by not appreciating that 1 when the entire income of the assessee is exempt from tax u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and the excess of income over expenditure is only Rs.9,909/-, he ought to have decided the appeal on merit to impart substantial justice to the assessee.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee by not appreciating that the notice issued u/s 148 dt. 27.04.2020 with the approval of JCIT, Range Bharatpur instead of PCIT is illegal & bad in law and therefore the entire assessment should have been quashed.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that when the source of cash deposit in the bank account is verifiable from the cash book being out of tuition fees receipt, the addition of Rs.52,36,771/- u/s 69A of the Act by treating the cash deposit in the bank account as unexplained is unjustified and unwarranted.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of bank interest of Rs.22,574/- ignoring that assessee has accounted for bank interest of Rs.34,085/- in the Income & Expenditure Account.

5.

The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.

6.

Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.”

ITA No. 1385/JPR/2026 ( A.Y. 2015-16)

“1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee by not condoning the delay of 251 days in filing the appeal by not appreciating that 1 when the entire income of the assessee is exempt from tax u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and the excess of income over expenditure is only Rs.9,909/-, there is no concealment of income.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not deciding on merit the action of AO in levying penalty of Rs. 16,25,136/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961.

3.

The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.

4.

Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.”

ITA No. 1386/JPR/2026 ( A.Y. 2018-19)

I.T.A No. 1384 to 1386/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti Nagar

“1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee by not condoning the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal by not appreciating that when the entire income of the assessee is exempt from tax u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and the excess of expenditure over income is Rs.9,63,159/-, he ought to have decided the appeal on merit to impart substantial justice to the assessee.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that when the source of cash deposit and other credits in the bank account is verifiable from the cash book and other records, the addition of Rs.1,00,41,656/- u/s 69A of the Act by treating the deposit in the bank account as unexplained is unjustified and unwarranted.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that when the vehicle for which addition of 3 Rs.15,41,800/- is made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act is duly recorded in the books of account and part financed from the bank loan, the addition so made is unjustified.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of bank interest of Rs.35,157/- ignoring that assessee has accounted for bank interest of Rs.24, 142/- in the Income & Expenditure Account.

5.

The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.

6.

Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.”

2.

At the very outset, Ld. AR for the assessee brought on record the facts that all the aforesaid appeals are time barred with delay of 15 days each and sought to condone the delay by moving applications for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit of Shri Nand Ram Sharma raising identical grounds inter-alia that the assessee trust has not filed the return of income for the years under consideration on the ground that its income was exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”); that

I.T.A No. 1384 to 1386/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti Nagar

noticing the cash deposit of Rs. 52,36,771/- by the AO in Axis bank account, assessment was reopened for A.Ys. 2015-16, A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2018-19 and all the notices were issued at secondary email ID i.e. sunilmittalca@gmail.com, Chartered Accountant Shri Sunil Mittal, the ld. AR for the assessee whereas the primary email ID of the assessee is efileb23@gmail.com; that C.A. Sunil Mittal filed reply in the e-filing portal explaining the sources of cash deposit in the bank, which was out of the receipt of school fees for which cash book was filed; that assessment order and penalty order has never been served upon the assessee, nor its counsel has informed the assessee; that assessee came to know about the penalty order on 13.06.2023 and then filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with an applications for condonation of delay; that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 390 days vide order dated 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026 appeal bearing ITA No. 1384/JPR/2026 for A.Y. 2015-16 and thereby dismissed the appeal in limine. Ld. CIT(A) further not condoned the delay of 40 days in appeal filed before him vide order dated 03.02.2026 in ITA No. 1386/JPR/2026 for A.Y. 2018-19; that delay was neither intentional, nor deliberate before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Tribunal. 3. However on the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue opposing the applications filed by the assessee for condonation of delay relied upon

I.T.A No. 1384 to 1386/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti Nagar

the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) that no “sufficient cause” has come on record to condone the same and further contended that when the assessee has hired the services of C.A. burden cannot be shifted on the Revenue authority to intimate the assessee trust as to the outcome of the impugned orders passed by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). 4 When we examine the reasons put forth by the assessee that the return of income is not being filed by the assessee trust, its income being exempt u/s 10(23V(iiiad) of the Act and that all the notices are given by the Revenue authority on secondary email ID, which belongs to C.A. Shri Sunil Mittal hired by the assessee trust, we find it a “sufficient cause”. 5. Moreover when primary email ID has been specifically given by the assessee, which belongs to the assessee trust all the notices were required to be issued on the same. At the same time, when notices were admittedly sent on secondary email ID Shri Sunil Mital, though hired by the assessee, it was his professional obligation to intimate/forward the notices to the assessee and to pursue the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). We are of the considered view that when it was mistake or negligence, as the case may be, on the part of the C.A. Sunil Mittal, assessee cannot be made to suffer. At the same time, we are of the considered view that the delay if caused due to mistake or negligence

I.T.A No. 1384 to 1386/JPR/2026 Page No 6 Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti Nagar

or professional misconduct of C.A. so hired to attend to the proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) delay cannot be attributed to the assessee, who has a statutory right to be heard on merits. So we find “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 390 days in appeals bearing ITA No. 1384/JPR/2026 & ITA No. 1385/JPR/2026 dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) in limine, hence delay of 390 days before the Ld. CIT(A) is condoned and both the appeals are directed to be heard on merits. 6. Likewise delay of 40 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in ITA No. 1386/JPR/2026 is also condoned as discussed in preceding paras and the appeal is ordered to be heard on merits. The Bench is also hearing in these appeals on merits. 7. Assessee’s appeals bearing ITA Nos.1384 to 1386/JPR/2026 filed before the Tribunal are also barred by limitation of 15 days each, in view of our findings in preceding para 4 of this order when the assessee has not got the notice of passing of the orders dismissing its appeals in limine, because of the fact that the Revenue/Respondent have used secondary email to intimate as to the outcome of the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), 15 days each in filing the aforesaid appeals are also condoned as per findings returned by the Bench in para 4 of the order.

I.T.A No. 1384 to 1386/JPR/2026 Page No 7 Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti Nagar

8.

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues in ITA No. 1384/JPR/2026 and ITA No. 1385/JPR/2026 are: On the basis of ITS data available with the department, which shows that the assessee has made cash deposit in the saving bank account to the tune of Rs. 52,36,771/-, assessment was reopened by initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Declining the contention raised by the assessee and on failure of the assessee to file the reply to the show cause notice alongwith draft assessment order, AO proceeded to make addition of Rs. 52,36,771/- u/s 69A of the Act in A.Y. 2015- 16 and made addition of Rs. 1,16,18,610/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in A.Y. 2018-19 and thereby framed the assessments u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 9. On the basis of assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the AO initiated/penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. On failure of the assessee to contest the penalty proceedings by putting in appearance despite notices, the AO proceeded to levy penalty to the tune of Rs. 16,25,136/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is 100% of tax sought to evade vide order dated 07.09.2022. 10. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the quantum appeal bearing ITA No. 1386/JPR/2026 vide

I.T.A No. 1384 to 1386/JPR/2026 Page No 8 Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti Nagar

order dated 03.02.2026 in limine by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in which the delay in filing the appeal was beyond the control of the assessee which duly explained. 11. In view of our findings in the preceding paras when the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is found to be for a “sufficient cause” and as such got condoned the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is no sustainable in the eyes of law. The assessee is accordingly entitled for fair and adequate opportunity to be heard to get his appeals decided on merits. So in view of the matter the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 (supra) passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside with a direction to pass afresh order by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. Likewise Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal bearing ITA No1386/JPR/2026 in A.Y.2018-19 vide order dated 03.02.2026 in limine by not condoning the delay, which stood condoned as per our findings returned in the preceding paras and as such the assessee has got the right to be heard on merits after getting opportunity of being heard. So the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is also not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence set aside to be decided afresh order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

I.T.A No. 1384 to 1386/JPR/2026 Page No 9 Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti Nagar

13.

Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine challenging the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 07.09.2022 by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him. As per our findings in the preceding paras now the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) stood condoned and the assessee has got right to be heard on merits. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the AO is hereby set aside to be passed afresh order by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. Resultantly, all the aforesaid appeal bearing ITA No. 1384 to 1386/JPR/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-10-2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 22/10/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order, SANTOSH Digitally signed by Asst. Registrar SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR MAURYA Date: 2026.10.26 MAURYA 10:00:15 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →