SANJAY MUKATI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), MAIN BUILDING INDORE

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर Ɋायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE

BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.510/Ind/2025 Assessment Year:2012-13

Sanjay Mukati, | ITO 2(1) 225, Tanki Chowk, | Indore Bijalpur, | बनाम/ Indore | Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) | (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: BCEPM6423N Assessee by | Shri Rishikesh Mishra, AR Revenue by | Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing | 11.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement | 23.12.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 13.02.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 27.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-2(4), Indore ["AO"] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] for Assessment-Year ["AY"] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).


I, Sanjay Mukati, S/o Shri Murari Lal Mukati, aged about 47 years, residing at 225, Tanki Chowk, Bijalpur, Indore – 452012, Madhya Pradesh, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

- That I am the appellant in the above appeal and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am competent to swear to this affidavit. - That the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), on 13.02.2025 in respect of Assessment Year 2012–13. - That the said appellate order was communicated to me and the due date for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was 12.04.2025.

That due to my limited understanding of tax matters and dependency on professional assistance, I could not take timely steps for filing the appeal. I was also engaged in agricultural harvesting activities and family obligations during this period.

That I had filed a detailed submission before the CIT(A) on 11.02.2025, which I later discovered was not considered on merits, nor were the supporting documents admitted. Upon legal consultation and professional guidance, I came to understand that the matter needed to be contested before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

That the delay in filing the present appeal is therefore due to bona fide reasons and not deliberate or intentional.

- 7. That I respectfully request the Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing in the interest of justice. - 8. That the contents of the accompanying condenation petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

(Sanjay Mukati)

Verification

I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of this affidavit from paras 1 to 8 are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Indore on this 28th day of May, 2025.

DEPONENT

(Sanjay Mukati)

SWORN BEFORE ME

VIJAY DEWANG 2 8 MAY 2025 ADVOCATE & NOTARY SOVERNMENT OF INDIA

- 3. The averments made by assessee in above affidavit, which are selfexplanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a "sufficient cause" for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a "sufficient cause" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. - 4. On merit of case, it emerged during hearing that the CIT(A) has passed following order: - "8.2 The assessee has filed additional evidence during the course of appellate proceedings which does not explain the case of the assessee. However, no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence justifying and explaining as to under which Clause of Rule 46A(1), the assessee's case is covered and as to why the additional evidence should be admitted. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the additional evidence filed by the assessee is

not admissible. Accordingly, the same is not admitted. Moreover, the additional evidence filed is incomplete and does not in way buttress the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned and speaking order of the AO. Therefore the additions of made by the AOof Rs.93,26,574/- u/s.69 of the Act and broughtto tax as the income of assessee is confirmed.

Hence, the grounds of appeal are Dismissed."

- 5. Thus, it is a case where the assessee was not able to file all evidences to AO and therefore filed additional evidences to CIT(A) but the CIT(A) rejected assessee's evidences in absence of a petition by assessee for admission of those evidences. At the same time, the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions but the CIT(A) has not passed a meritorious order as per mandate of section 250(6) of the Act which provides "The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.". Therefore, the impugned order of CIT(A) deserves to be set aside. It further emerged that the additional evidences sought to be filed by assessee would ultimately require a proper verification by AO. In that view of matter, it would be better to restore this matter at the level of AO for adjudication afresh. Both sides agreed to this proposition. Ld. DR, however, made a request to give specific direction to assessee for co-operation and representation before AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. - 6. In view of above facts and considering the submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind

that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced by putting up on notice board in terms of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 23/12/2025

Sd/- Sd/-

(SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore

िदनांक /Dated : 23/12/2025

Patel/Sr. PS

Copies to: (1) The appellant

(2) The respondent

(3) CIT (4) CIT(A)

(5) Departmental Representative

(6) Guard File

By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore