KESHYA SOLANKI,BARWANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SENDHWA

ITA 581/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 December 2025AY 2016-20175 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal, taking into account the assessee's averments and the settled law that technical aspects should not impede substantial justice, citing Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the AO had made a protective addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- for AY 2016-17, which was connected to a substantive addition of the same amount for AY 2017-18. The matter for AY 2017-18 had already been remanded by the ITAT to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Recognizing this connection, a consensus was reached that the present appeal should also be remanded. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a hearing opportunity to the assessee and pass an order uninfluenced by the previous order. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and participate in hearings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Keshya Solanki, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, against an order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. This order arose from an assessment order dated 16.12.2018 passed by the Income Tax Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The appeal before the ITAT was delayed by 25 days. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, citing reasons such as reliance on a tax consultant, non-receipt of intimations from the appellate authority, and learning about the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order only upon receiving a message from the Income Tax Department on 06.06.2025. The AO had made a protective addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- for AY 2016-17 on account of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The assessee argued that the delay was inadvertent and bona fide, caused by a lack of communication from their tax consultant and a failure to check personal or consultant's email regularly. They relied on the principle of substantial justice over technicalities, as laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The revenue did not record any specific arguments regarding the delay. 2. Whether the matter of the protective addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- for AY 2016-17 should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee and the revenue reached a consensus during the hearing that since a substantive addition of the same amount for AY 2017-18 had already been remanded to the CIT(A) by the ITAT, the present matter, being connected, should also be remanded. This issue turns on the principle of consistency and the interconnectedness of additions across assessment years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Jahangeer Khan, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal Sr. DR

Hearing: 08.12.2025Pronounced: 16.12.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

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

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 21.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Chennai [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 16.12.2018 passed by learned ITO, Sendhwa [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Keshya Solanki Barwani - AY 2016-17 2. The present appeal is delayed by 25 days and therefore time-barred.

The assessee has filed a condonation-application/affidavit; the assessee’s application is scanned and re-produced below:

Keshya Solanki Barwani - AY 2016-17 Small delay of 25 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned taking into account the facts of case and the assessee’s solemn averments made in above application in the light of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.

On merit of case, it emerged during hearing that the AO has made a protective addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- in AY 2016-17, with which we are concerned, on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank a/c during

Keshya Solanki Barwani - AY 2016-17 demonetization period. At the same time, the AO made a substantive addition of very same amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in assessee’s hands in AY 2017-18 and the matter of AY 2017-18 came up before ITAT, Indore “SMC” and the ITAT has, vide order dated 29.08.2025, already remanded the same to CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

Therefore, realizing that the substantive addition and protective addition are very much connected, a consensus was reached during hearing that the present matter must also be remanded to CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

Accordingly, we remand this matter to the file of CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced by putting up on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 16/12/2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →