DILIP BUDHADEV,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA, MADHYA PRADESH

the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1072703018(1) dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the Page 1 of 8 “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2013-14 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s.

144/144B of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was computed at Rs.96,19,860/-. The total income as per the Return of Income was at Rs.93,224/-. The addition of Rs.95,26,636/- was made as business income. The aforesaid assessment orders bears No.IBA/AST/S/147/2021- 22/1041896461(1) and that the same is dated 29.03.2022, which is hereinafter 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 1st appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core ground and reasons for the dismissal of the 1st appeal was as under:-

“5. xxxxxThe appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days of the receipt of demand notice. However, the appellant has not done so. Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and therefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT Act.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the specified period. Hence, since, appeal was not filed within prescribed time as provided in the section 249(2) of the IT Act, the same is not admitted.

2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:-

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant under section 147 of the Act even when proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 153C of the Act and I not under section 147 of the Act since the document/information which formed the very basis for reopening the case of the appellant was found during the course of search carried out in the case of M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Society Ltd on 26-05-2017

gross amount credited/ cash deposited in the bank account maintained with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Society Ltd by treating it as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act even when only the element of net profit could have been subject to tax

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld Assessing Officer erred in adding an amount of Rs. 95,26,636/- to the total income of the appellant on account of gross amount credited/ cash deposited in the bank account maintained with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Society Ltd by treating it as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act even when only th peak balance could have been subject to tax

6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as filed by the appellant by declining the condonation of delay in filing of appeal more so when the appellant was having sufficient and reasonable cause for filing of appeal after due-date before the Ld CIT(A).

7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant merely for verification of source of credits/cash 7 deposited in the bank account maintained with M/s Shri Renuka Rs. Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Society Ltd which tantamount to making roving and fishing inquiries in the garb of reassessment proceedings which is grossly unjustifiable.

8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the 8 appellant in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income and merely on the basis of borrowed opinion without independent application of mind.

9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant without obtaining proper sanction as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act.”

3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 14.10.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia contended that the “impugned order” is bad in law and illegal. A paper book containing pages 1 to 338 were placed on record of this tribunal. The Ld. AR contended that there was a delay of 19 days only in preferring the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the “impugned assessment order” is dated 29.03.2022. The requisite fee for the first appeal was paid on 30.03.2022.

However unfortunately the “impugned assessment order” remained with the assessee inadvertently and could not be given to the counsel. The 1st appeal was filed on 17.05.2022 after a lapse of statutory time limit of 30 days. There was a delay though very nominal. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the “impugned order” on merits of the case. The “impugned assessment order” was a bi-parte order. It was finally prayed that the “impugned order” should be set aside and matter be remanded back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on merits after condoning the delay. Per contra the Ld. DR

Page 5 of 8 appearing for and on behalf of the revenue contended that there is a indeed a small delay requiring a liberal approach and then only the Ld. CIT(A) should have proceeded to decide the case of the assessee in the first appeal on merits but unfortunately that has not happened. Hence the matter should be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) on denovo basis, after condoning the delay.

4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietery of the “impugned order” basis records of the case and rival contentions canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case as presented to this Tribunal by both the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR to determine the legality, validity of the “impugned order” basis law and by following the due process.

4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the rival contentions of the parties canvassed before us are of the considered opinion that the “impugned order” should be set aside and matter should be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits of the case.

Page 6 of 8 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there was absolutely no abnormal delay in filing the 1st appeal by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the “impugned assessment order” was dated 29.03.2022 and requisite fee in this regard was paid on 29.03.2022 itself however unfortunately the assessee carried with him the “impugned assessment order” and did not handed it over to his counsel. Consequently leading to delay. Therefore we are of the considered view that the delay is not at all abnormal and deserves to be condoned and is accordingly condoned. The delay was not deliberate. It was a bonafide mistake on part of the assessee (supra).

4.4 In view of the above, we set aside the “impugned order” and remand the case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) on denovo basis. The Ld. CIT(A) is now expected to pass the order on merits in denovo proceedings.

5. Order 5.1 In view of the aforesaid the “impugned order” is set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) on denovo basis with the directions as aforesaid.

Page 7 of 8 5.2 In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 16.10.2025.