SHRI OMPRAKASH CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 332/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 November 2025AY 2011-20127 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The Tribunal found 'sufficient cause' for the delay based on the assessee's explanation and in the absence of contrary material. It relied on Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after the prescribed time if there is a sufficient cause. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach when substantial justice and technical considerations conflict. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the principle of natural justice and the understanding that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. The AO was directed to provide a necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Omprakash Choudhary, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, against an order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order dated 23.12.2018 passed by the ITO-2(4), Indore, under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was filed belatedly. The assessee submitted a condonation application explaining the delay. The revenue did not object to the condonation. The ITAT considered the explanation and, in the absence of contrary material, found 'sufficient cause' for the delay, citing Section 253(5) of the Act and the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The appeal was admitted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the provisions of Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the principles of substantial justice. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to reasons explained in the condonation application, without any lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention, or ulterior motive, and that no benefit was derived from the delay. The assessee prayed for condonation. Revenue's Contention: The revenue left the matter to the wisdom of the Bench without raising any objection. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 74,24,044/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained bank deposits and interest should be adjudicated afresh by the AO. Assessee's Contention: The assessee submitted that he was not a regular return filer and was primarily engaged in agricultural activities, which led to his inability to represent his case effectively before the AO. The assessee had now compiled all necessary details and was willing to make a proper representation if given an opportunity. Therefore, the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The revenue stated it would have no objection if the matter was remanded to the AO, requesting a direction for the assessee to represent his case diligently and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(5),Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Porwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.11.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 09.01.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 23.12.2018 passed by learned ITO-2(4), Indore [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Shri Omprakash Choudhary - AY 2011-12

2.

The registry has informed that the present appeal is belatedly filed after expiry of statutory time and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application/affidavit; the same is scanned and re-produced below:

Page 2 of 7 Shri Omprakash Choudhary - AY 2011-12 Page 3 of 7 Shri Omprakash Choudhary - AY 2011-12 Page 4 of 7

Shri Omprakash Choudhary - AY 2011-12 He further submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He prayed to condone delay. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee in application/affidavit 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.

3.

On merit of case, it emerged on perusal of assessment-order that the AO has made addition of Rs. 74,24,044/- consisting of deposits of Rs. 74,00,100/- in bank a/c deemed as unexplained credit (+) interest of Rs.

Shri Omprakash Choudhary - AY 2011-12 23,944/- earned by assessee from bank a/c. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not a return filer and the assessee is engaged mainly in agricultural activity, therefore the assessee was not able to represent his case before AO which had led the AO to deem the deposits in bank a/c as unexplained credit. However, the assessee has now compiled all details/documents for satisfaction of AO and therefore ready and willing to make a proper representation before AO if an opportunity is given.

Accordingly, Ld. AR prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of AO for adjudication afresh.

4.

Ld. DR for revenue submitted that he would not have any objection if the bench takes a call to remand this matter to AO. However, he makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

5.

In view of above 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.

Shri Omprakash Choudhary - AY 2011-12

6.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 28/11/2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →