SANJAY SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 1(1) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 654/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 October 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 663 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee, relating to his wife's health and counsel's non-compliance, to be sufficient. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the cash deposits of Rs. 1,59,54,170/- pertained to cash sales in his liquor business. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's request for an opportunity to explain the facts before the AO, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of significant delay caused by circumstances beyond the assessee's control and where a substantive issue requires examination, it is just and appropriate to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, provided the assessee demonstrates a prima facie case and a willingness to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanjay Shivhare, filed an appeal against an order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of approximately 663 days. The assessee attributed the delay to his wife's severe health condition and the non-compliance of his then IT counsel during assessment and appellate proceedings. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition of Rs. 1,59,54,170/- under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of cash deposits during the demonetisation period, citing failure to furnish supporting documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2017-18 should be condoned? The assessee contended that the delay was caused by his wife's severe health issues and the non-compliance of his counsel, leading to ex-parte orders at both the assessment and first appellate stages. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on the delay. 2. Whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, considering the assessee's submission regarding cash deposits from his liquor business? The assessee argued that cash deposits of Rs. 1,59,54,170/- were from cash sales in his liquor business, which had total sales of Rs. 5,55,53,150/-. He requested an opportunity to explain these facts before the AO. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER:BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed in appeal No. CIT (A), Gwalior/10529/2019-20 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income

ITA No. 654/Agr/2026

Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2017-18, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte.

2.

At the very outset, it is noticed that this second appeal has been filed on 25.08.2026 by a delay of about 663 days. The assessee has prayed to condone the said delay by filing an affidavit dated 12.08.2026, stating that due to severe health condition of his wife during the relevant period, wherein, the assessee was totally dependent on the then IT counsel who did not comply during the assessment proceeding and ex-parte assessment order was passed in the case of the assessee. Further, it was submitted that again due to the non-appearance of his counsel during the appellate proceedings, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT (A). In view of these facts the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. We have considered the reasons for the delay and treat the cause shown as sufficient and condone the said delay caused in filing this appeal. The appeal is admitted for hearing.

3.

Heard both the parties. It transpires form the perusal of records that several notices of hearing on various dates were issued by the first appellate authority to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond in compliance thereof. The ld. CIT(A) was thus compelled to pass impugned order. The non-cooperative conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. 2 | P a g e

ITA No. 654/Agr/2026

3.1 Further, in this case, we note that the addition of Rs. 1,59,54,170/- was made u/s 68 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act by the AO in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2019 in respect of cash deposits during the demonetisation period on the ground that the assessee furnished his reply but failed to furnish supporting documentary evidences regarding his claim of cash deposit during the demonetisation period. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was in liquor business where sales are made in cash and the total sales during the year was Rs. 5,55,53,150/- out of which cash deposit of Rs. 1,59,54,170/- was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to explain the facts before the AO.

3.2 Therefore, considering the above facts and the submission of the assessee, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of ld. AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is set aside.

3 | P a g e

ITA No. 654/Agr/2026

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27/10/2026 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →