PURSHOTTAM RATHORE,RATLAM vs. ITO 1(2), UJJAIN

Page 1 of 13
आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Assessment Year:2008-09
Purshottam Rathore,
50, Ramgarh,
Ratlam
बनाम/
Vs.
ITO 1(2)
Ujjain
(Assessee/Appellant)
(Revenue/Respondent)
PAN: ASFPR9177E
Assessee by Shri Sanjay Patwa, AR
Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
13.10.2025
Date of Pronouncement
15.10.2025
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 28.06.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 11.11.2010 passed by learned
ITO-1(2), Ujjain [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2008-09, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36) on following grounds:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard.

Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 2 of 13
2. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIF(A) erred in confirming the action of A.O. has erred in making an addition of Rs. 16,69,000/-under section 69A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 as stated in the impugned order or otherwise.
3. The Appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing.”
2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the AO, based on information in possession about cash deposit of Rs. 16,69,500/- having been made by assessee in A/c with Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Ratlam branch during the previous year 2007-08 relevant to AY 2008-09, issued notice dated 19.03.2009 u/s 142(1) calling the assessee to file return of income. However, this notice remained uncompiled by assessee. The AO issued follow up notices u/s 142(1) which also remained uncompiled.
Ultimately, the AO made ex-parte assessment u/s 144 by treating the impugned deposits of Rs. 16,69,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not make a representation to the hearing notices issued by CIT(A) and therefore the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.
3. The registry has informed that present appeal was filed on 10.03.2025
against impugned order dated 28.06.2023 passed by CIT(A). Thus, there is a delay and the appeal is time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee drew us to the following affidavit filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay:

Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 3 of 13

Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 4 of 13
4. Referring to contents of affidavit, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was diagnosed with the life-threatening disease of cancer in the year 2021
and thereafter struggling with this disease till now. The affidavit is also accompanied by several prescriptions, laboratory reports, etc. of different hospitals and doctors. Ld. AR submitted that due to this reason alone the assessee was neither able to represent his case before CIT(A) nor file present appeal in time. He further submitted that somehow the family of assessee approached him to look into the matter and extend necessary help, therefore he is doing his best effort to secure justice for assessee. Ld. AR made a very humble prayer to take a judicious view, condone delay and admit this appeal.
5. Ld. AR next submitted that it is true that the assessee was unable to comply with notices issued by AO during assessment-proceedings and therefore the AO made addition of Rs. 16,69,500/- by treating entire amount of deposits in bank a/c as unexplained money. But it is also a fact that the assessee was, at the relevant time, engaged in agricultural activity and also carrying on a small level business of vegetables. He submitted that the deposits of Rs. 16,69,500/- in bank a/c represented assessee’s turnover of vegetable business for financial year 2007-08 and the income element therein was much less. He submitted that the assessee did not have sufficient taxable income, therefore the assessee had no necessity or occasion to file any return of income or face income-tax proceedings. He drew us to the assessment-order passed by AO wherein the AO has Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 5 of 13
mentioned “—” against PAN which clearly shows that the assessee did not have PAN even. However, after passing of assessment-order, the assessee obtained PAN and filed first appeal to CIT(A) on 17.02.2011 and also filed return of income to AO’s office on 20.04.2011 with computation of total income, statements of affairs and a letter, as per guidance available from a local consultant. These documents are scanned and re-produced below for an immediate reference:

Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 6 of 13

Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 7 of 13

Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 8 of 13

Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 9 of 13

Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 10 of 13
6. Referring to above documents, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has disclosed turnover of Rs. 18,78,500/- and offered business income of Rs.
93,925/- under presumptive provisions of section 44AF which is in accordance with provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. Finally, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has already offered proper taxable income in the return of income filed to department. Further, the assessee is at present struggling with cancer and not in a position to make anymore submission. Therefore, with folded hands, the assessee makes a prayer to close his case taking into account the records available. Ld. AR made a strong request to bench to accept the prayer of assessee. Ld. AR mentioned that he himself is extending support to assessee due to humanity without any expectation of a single penny.
8. Ld. DR for revenue although expressed a concern that there was no representation by assessee before AO in the year 2010 when the case was taken for scrutiny-assessment, yet he accepted that the bench may take a judicious call in the matter of condonation of delay as well as disposing of this appeal due to the peculiar position of assessee. On a suggestion asked by bench, he narrated that the taxable income may be finalized at a suitable level of say 8% of turnover, if thought fit.
9. We have carefully considered submissions of both sides and perused the case record.

Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 11 of 13
10. At first, taking into account the reasoning of delay in filing present appeal as noted above which we do not wish to repeat, we condone the delay and admit this appeal.
11. The assessee is aggrieved by the addition of Rs. 16,69,500/- made by AO. The present case is very old pertaining to AY 2008-09. The facts of case show that the AO, on the basis of information of deposit of Rs. 16,69,500/- made by assessee in a bank a/c, issued notice u/s 142(1) calling assessee to file return. The AO also issued follow up notices. However, the notices issued by AO were not attended by assessee. Ultimately, the AO closed assessment-proceeding by passing ex-parte order u/s 144 treating the entire amount of bank deposit as unexplained money u/s 69A. However, post- completion of assessment, the assessee filed a return to AO with the assistance of a local consultant, declaring business turnover of Rs.
18,78,500/- and presumptive income of Rs. 93,925/- u/s 44AF. The return filed by assessee is acknowledged by official seal of AO’s office (re-produced in earlier para). There is no other income either assessed by AO in assessment-order or declared by assessee in the return of income subsequently filed. The case relates to AY 2008-09 for which the ceiling limit for no tax liability was Rs. 1,10,000/-. The income of Rs. 93,925/- declared by assessee is in accordance with presumptive provisions of section 44AF and the total income of assessee (rounded off) is Rs. 93,930/- which is less the ceiling limit. Therefore, the assessee was legally not required to file return of income u/s 139 of Income-tax Act, 1961. We find that the section Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 12 of 13
44AF prescribes 5% presumptive income and if an assessee accepts such presumptive income, there is an exemption from maintenance of books of account u/s 44AA. Therefore, the income of Rs. 93,925/- declared by assessee is very much in accordance with provisions of section 44AF and no further addition is legally warranted. We accordingly direct the AO to modify assessment-order and restrict addition to Rs. 93,925/- as accepted by assessee in the return of income filed. The excess addition over and above
Rs. 93,925/- is hereby deleted. The assessee gets part-relief accordingly.
12. Before parting we make it clear that we have decided present case on the basis of documents available on record in the exceptional situation of this case as discussed in earlier part of this order. However, the adjudication made by us is confined to this case only and it would not be quoted as a precedent in future.
13. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 15/10/2025 (PARESH M. JOSHI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated :
15/10/2025
Patel/Sr. PS

Purshottam Rathore
ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 – AY 2008-09
Page 13 of 13
Copies to:
(1)
The appellant
(2)
The respondent
(3)
CIT
(4)
CIT(A)
(5)
Departmental Representative
(6)
Guard File
By order
E COPYSr. Private Secretary
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Indore Bench, Indore