SOURABH KOCHETTA,NEEMUCH vs. ITO, NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1137/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 October 2026AY 2017-1813 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the "Impugned Order" passed by the CIT(A) was indeed ex-parte and was passed without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. This conclusion was based on the fact that the notices issued under section 250 of the Act were sent to incorrect email addresses (dmittalca@yahoo.com and dmittalca077386@gmail.com) instead of the address provided by the assessee in Form 35 (cagoyal0734@gmail.com). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the "Impugned Order" and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo (fresh) adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking and well-reasoned order after affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions made by the AO or the applicability of sections 69A and 115BBE, as the matter was remitted back.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2017-18. The original assessment order, passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assessed the assessee's total income at Rs. 21,89,150, which included an addition of Rs. 18,40,057 on account of unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE. The assessee appealed this assessment order to the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, noting the assessee's failure to provide sufficient material or comply with multiple notices issued electronically through ITBA. The assessee then filed the present appeal before the ITAT, aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s dismissal order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)'s order, passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance, is bad in law and violates principles of natural justice, thereby warranting quashing and remand, as argued by the assessee. 2. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69A and the applicability of section 115BBE were justified, as challenged by the assessee. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that the CIT(A)'s order was bad in law, illegal, and a violation of natural justice, as it was passed ex-parte without proper service of notices. The assessee contended that notices were sent to incorrect email addresses, not the one provided in Form 35 (cagoyal0734@gmail.com), but rather to dmittalca@yahoo.com and dmittalca077386@gmail.com. The assessee also highlighted that the "Impugned Assessment Order" was bipartite, while the "Impugned Order" from CIT(A) was ex-parte. - The assessee also raised grounds challenging the additions made under section 69A and the applicability of section 115BBE, as well as the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC, arguing these were made on conjectures and beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's representative did not resist the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and left the decision on the delay to the bench. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the merits of the CIT(A)'s order or the assessee's grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 246A,Section 271AAC,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

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 &, Ms. Shradha Piplodia
Hearing: 21.10.2026Pronounced: 30.10.2026

Per Paresh M. Joshi, JM:

This is an Appeal filed by the Revenue under section 253 of

the Income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal. The Revenue is

aggrieved by the order bearing No:-ITBA/APL /S/250/2025-

26/1080268412(1) dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Ld.

CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred as the

“Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year is 2017- 2018 and the corresponding Previous 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 143(3)

of the Act, the total income of the assessee was computed and

assessed at Rs. 21,89,150/- [RO]. The Income as per the

return of the income was at Rs. 3,49,090/-. The addition of

Rs. 18,40,057/- was made on the account of unexplained

money under section 69A read with section 115 BBE of the

act. That the aforesaid assessment order bears No.

ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1023181428(1) and that the same

is dated 26.12.2019 which is herein after referred to as the

“Impugned assessment order”.

2.2 That the Assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s

246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the

“Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the

Assessee on the grounds & the reasons stated therein. The core grounds & the reasons for the dismissal the first appeal

was as under:-

6 Decision:

In this case, during the appellate proceedings,

the contents filed by the appellant in Form 35

have been perused. The appellant has filed

form 35 along with grounds of appeal. The

same have been perused which were not

sufficient to decide the appeal of the

appellant, therefore the appellant were given

multiple opportunities to file written

submission to substantiate his grounds of

appeal. The notices were issued electronically

through ITBA, but the appellant has failed to

comply with the same. He had neither made

any compliance/submissions in response to the

notices issued and sought for adjournment one

time and thereafter remained non-compliant.

The details of the notices issued are as under.

Sr. Date of issue Date of fixing Sent Remarks No. hearing notice hearing by/ u/s 250 through 1. 15.01.2021 01.02.2021 ITBA Non compliance 2. 03.11.2021 12.11.2021 ITBA Adjournment 3. 20.03.2024 04.04.2024 ITBA Non compliance 4. 05.11.2024 14.11.2024 ITBA Non compliance 5. 24.06.2025 30.06.2025 ITBA Non compliance 6. 20.08.2025 26.08.2025 ITBA Non compliance

6.1. The available material on record is verified

along with grounds of appeals and statement of

facts. After considering the material available on

record, it is seen that no sufficient material is

available to provide any relief to the appellant. If

the appellant would have submitted some

information and some documents, the case would

have been decided on merits. Therefore, under

such circumstances it is not possible to allow any

relief to the appellant.

6.2.9. In view of the facts and legal position

discussed above, it is presumed that appellant is

not interested in pursuing the appeal and not

producing any documents, explanation and evidence in support of grounds of appeal raised

and thus has not discharged the onus to

substantiate the grounds. It is seen that no

written submission filed till date despite multiple

opportunities. In view of the lack of prosecution by

the appellant, I proceed to decide the appeal in

view of the discussion made above.

6.3. The appellant has failed to furnish any

material evidences or documents or even the

written submission either with its appeal or

during the appellate proceedings to substantiate

the grounds of appeal. In view of the discussions

in the preceding paras, the clear position of law

and respectfully relying upon the judgments of

Hon'ble High Courts as above I do not find merit in

the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the appeal is

dismissed on this count.

6.4. In the result, appeal of the appellant is

dismissed.

2.3 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order”

has preferred the Instant Second Appeal before this Tribunal &

has raised the following grounds of appeal in the form No: -36

against the “Impugned Order” which are as under: -

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and

in law, the assessment order dated 26.12.2019 is

bad in law, without jurisdiction, and liable to be

quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the

case and in law, the additions are made on mere

conjectures, surmises and suspicions.

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and

in law, the assessment was completed without

complying with the statutory requirements of law.

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and

in law, the assessment order dated 26.12.2019 is

contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the

case and in any case is opposed to the principles

of equity, natural justice and fair play.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and

in law, that the Ld. JCIT-(A) erred in upholding the

addition, made by Ld. AO on issue beyond the

Scope of limited scrutiny. 6. On the facts and

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

JCIT-(A) erred in not holding that the ld. AO had

travelled beyond his jurisdiction, rendering the

assessment order illegal, void ab initio and

unsustainable.

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and

in law, The Ld. JCIT-(A) erred in upholding the

action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.

18,40,057/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A. 8. On

the facts and circumstances of the case and in

law, the Ld. NFAC erred in applying the provisions

of section 115BBE at a higher rate of tax.

5.

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case

and in law, the provisions of Section 69A cannot

be invoked. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the provisions of section

115BBE can not be invoked.

6.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and

in law, the initiation of penalty proceedings under

Section 271AAC is bad in law. 12. For that the

appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary

and OR withdraw any CR. all the above grounds of

appeal.

7.

HUMBLE PRAYERS For these grounds and such

other grounds that may be urged before OR during

the hearing of the appeal it utmost humbly prayed

that this respected authority may be pleased to: 1.

Quash the reassessment order dated 26.12.2019.

2.

DLEETE the addition of Rs. 18,40,057/- u/s.

69A. 3. Hold that the provisions of section 69A are

not invokable. 4. Hold that provisions of section

115BBE are not invokable 5. DLEETE the interest

levied under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D 6.

Accept the returned income as filed by the

appellant. 7. DROP the penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271AAC. 8. Any other

relief that may be deemed fit and proper by this

Honble Tribunal.

3.

Record of Hearing

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on

21/10/2026, when the Ld AR for and on the behalf of the

Assessee appeared before us & Interalia contended that the

"Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It is in the

violation of the principles of natural justice. It therefore deserves

to be set aside.

3.2 The Ld. AR has placed on the record of this Tribunal a PB

from pages 29 to 38 in support along with appeal memo from

pages 1 to 28. In addition, the Ld. AR has placed on the record fo

this Tribunal an affidavit dated 12.10.2026 in support of the

condonation delay.

3.3 The Ld. AR then contended that the registry has pointed out

the delay of 22 days in filing the instant second appeal. The

“Impugned order” is dated 02.09.2025 & the instant appeal

ought to have been filed with in a period of 60 days as stipulated

by law but same was filed on 22.12.2025. Hence delay of 22 days. An Affidavit in support dated 12.10.2026 was read out. It

was contended that factum of passing of the “Impugned order”

came to assessee’s knowledge on 06.12.2025 upon issuance of

penalty notice only. Hence the delay & same should be condoned.

Other averments made in the said affidavit too were read out.

Per contra Ld. DR did not resist the delay nor opposed the

contents of the affidavit & left it to bench to take an appropriate

call basis law. After carefully perusing the affidavit and after

hearing both the sides we are of the opinion that “sufficient

cause” has been shown for delay of 22 days and according we

condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3.4 The Ld AR then submitted that whereas the “Impugned

Assessment Order” is a Biparte order the “Impugned

Order” is an exparte one. Our attention was then invited to

the appeal memo page 18 column No. 17 which has a caption

“Address to which notices may be sent to the appellant”

Wherein the e-mail address is cagoyal0734@gmail.com whereas

all notice(s) for the hearing as statedin para 5 in fact went to

different email addresses i.e. dmittalca@yahoo.com and dmittal ca077386@gmail.com & following table was read out which is

reproduced by us as below:-

Date of Issued on email address Reference hearing notice (Portal Screen shot) 15.01.2021 dmittalca@yahoo.com Page 29 of AM 03.11.2021 dmittalca@yahoo.com Page 30 of AM 20.03.2024 dmittalca077386@gmail.com Page 31 of AM 05.11.2024 dmittalca077386@gmail.com Page 32 of AM 24.06.2025 dmittalca077386@gmail.com Page 33 of AM 20.08.2025 dmittalca077386@gmail.com Page 34 of AM

The Ld. AR also emphasized para 6 of the affidavit & invited our

attention to PB page 35 towards acquittal order when the

assessee was in judicial custody from 07.01.2023 to 08.03.2025

& finally was acquitted by court. Per contra Ld. DR has placed

reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. Hearing was then

over & closed.

4 Observations, Finding and Conclusions

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietary of

the “Impugned Order” basis records of the case & the rival

submissions canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and further

upon examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR and the Ld.

DR canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that

“Impugned Order” is exparte nature as none of the notice(s)

Supra u/s 250 of the act were served to the assessee as per form

no. 35 which address was cagoyal0734@gmail.com & all notice(s)

went to different email id’s as per 3.4 above. Under these facts &

circumstances we hold that “Impugned Order” is exparte & was

passed without hearing the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside

the “Impugned Order” & remand the case back to CIT(A) on

denovo basis.

4.4 In view of the above, we set aside the “Impugned Order” &

remand the case back to file of the Ld. CIT(A) on denovo basis,

who shall now pass a speaking & well-reasoned order.

5 Order

5.1 In the result the “Impugned Order” is set aside as and by

way of remand back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

5.2 In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

Statistical Purpose.

Pronounced in open court on 30.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARVIND SONI) (PARESH M. JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 30/10/2026

Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

Akhilesh Kumar Digitally signed by Akhilesh Kumar Date: 2026.11.02 17:40:57 +05'30' By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 13 of 13

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →