KALA JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253 of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for

sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by

the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-

25/1068119476(1) dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)

which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The

Page 1 of 10

Kala Jain ITA No. 799/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18 and the corresponding

previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017.

2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s. 147

r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the total assessed income was computed

at Rs.15,58,560/-. The returned income was Rs.6,58,560/-.

Addition of Rs.9,00,000/- was made. That the aforesaid

assessment order bears No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-

22/1041664587(1) and that same is dated 25.03.2022 which is

hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”.

2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned

assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act

before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons

stated therein.

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 Form No.36 against the

“impugned order” which are as under:-

“1. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case and Confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 9,00,000/- u/s 69A and taxed the same u/s 115BBE without

Page 2 of 10

Kala Jain ITA No. 799/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 considering the facts and explanation submitted by the assessee. The addition therefore made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) is totally wrong and illegal on facts. 2. That the Ld. CIT failed to appreciate the fact regarding the issue of notice u/s 148. Thus the reopening of case is bad in law. 3. That the appellant craves to leave, add, alter or amend any of the ground at or before hearing”.

Delay

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on

26.06.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee at

the outset and at the threshold stated that there is a delay of 10

days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal and

that the said delay be condoned as there is sufficient cause for

the condonation of delay. It was urged by him that the

“impugned order” is dated 29.08.2024, the last date for filing

the instant appeal was 28.10.2024. However the same was e-

filed on 28.10.2024 but there was delay in uploading the same

and that the same got finally uploaded on 07.11.2024. The

challan is however dated 25.10.2024. Per contra Ld. DR stated

that the revenue has no objection if delay is condoned. After

hearing both sides and after carefully perusing the condonation

of delay application along with affidavit in support thereof we are

Page 3 of 10

Kala Jain ITA No. 799/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 of the considered opinion that the assessee has shown sufficient

cause for the condonation of delay. Accordingly we condone the

delay and admit the appeal. Appeal taken up for hearing.

3.2 The Ld. AR then submitted before this tribunal that the

assessee is in the business of grocery/grocery store at

Marothiya Bazar, Indore which is run in the name and style of

M/s Roopchand Kishanlal Kirana Merchant. The assessee’s

source of income is from the grocery store. Originally the store at

Marothiya Bazar was being run by Smt. Dakha Bai Jain who died

on 16.02.2016. However her PAN number was not uploaded on

the bank account. The said business of store was however

succeeded and currently it is run by Mrs. Kala Jain the

assessee herein. That sum of Rs.9 lakhs came to be deposited

during the period of demonetization. The business of the

assessee is such that lot of cash is generated while running the

grocery store. The cash book of the assessee is audited one and

the relevant bank account is duly disclosed of bank of Baroda

(BOB). Attention was invited to page 17-18 of paper book filed

from which it was pointed out that on 18.11.2016 sum of Rs.9

lakh was deposited. Basis page 34 (paper book) the cash book it

Page 4 of 10

Kala Jain ITA No. 799/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 was contended that Rs.9 lakh is clearly reflected as cash

deposited which was audited. Attention of the bench was also

invited to page 5 para 3 of the “impugned assessment order”

which reveals that Smt. Dakha Bai Jain died on 16.02.2016 and

her PAN number with bank was not changed. Since the business

is taken over by the assessee Mrs. Kala Jain, the deposit of Rs.9

lakh is by the assessee only. Attention was invited to page 15 of

paper book to demonstrate that reply dated 05.03.2022 in

response to notice dated 15.02.2022 u/s 142(1) of the Act was

filed. Attention was also invited to para 7 of reply wherein it was

stated that “complete cash book” for Financial Year 2016-17

is enclosed. Copy of acknowledgement was not filed with the

paper book. The Ld. AR then contended that the “impugned

order” is illegal and bad in law as cash book was audited one.

Cash is involved is apparent from cash book and nature of the

business itself (grocery store). The books of accounts are not

rejected by Ld. A.O. The business income of the assessee is

accepted by Ld. A.O without any variation. Internal page 9 of

the “impugned order” was also discussed wherein the Ld. CIT(A)

has stated that acknowledgement dated 05.03.2022 on portal

Page 5 of 10

Kala Jain ITA No. 799/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 shows no evidence was attached and that observation of Ld.

A.O that no details are furnished by assessee in response to

notice dated 15.02.2022 are irrelevant.

3.3 Per contra Ld. DR for the revenue has contended that the

“impugned assessment order” is correct in law and on the

facts. From the paper book filed it is not emerging clearly that

whether reply dated 15.02.2022 was filed before Ld. A.O or not.

Page 6 and page 8 of paper book which are assessee’s reply dated

29.01.2022 and 09.03.2022 respectively there are no attachment

therein. The Ld. DR contended that full and complete picture is

not shown by the assessee to the Tribunal. The Ld. DR then

asserted that even if the requisite documents as claimed by the

assessee is taken to have been filed it would be in the fitness of

things to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. A.O as the

assessee has not filed complete cash book as observed by Ld.

CIT(A) in the “impugned order”. The Ld. DR finally prayed for

remand of the case back to the Ld. A.O to pass a fresh order on

denovo basis.

Page 6 of 10

Kala Jain ITA No. 799/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 4. Observations,findings & conclusions.

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 Ld. AR & Ld. DR to determine

the legality, validity of the “impugned order” basis law and by

following due process .

4.3 We are of the considered opinion that in the “impugned

order” there were certain handicaps which prevented the Ld.

CIT(A) to analyse the over all gamut of the case which was before

him in the first appeal and same is reflected in para 4.2. Internal

page 9 of the “impugned order” wherein following is observed by

Ld. CIT(A):- “It is also observed from ITBA CPC-2.0 Module

that the appellant did not furnish all the requisite details,

as sought by the Ld. A.O during the assessment proceedings

and the appellant has furnished an acknowledgement dated

29.02.2022 only during the appellate proceedings, which

has only an attachment or written reply dated 29.01.2022.

Further the acknowledgment dated 05.03.22 available on

Page 7 of 10

Kala Jain ITA No. 799/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 ITBA shows that the appellant did not attach any written

submission or evidences with the on line reply on

05.03.2022. Therefore the A.O has rightly recorded in the

assessment order that no requisite details had been

furnished by the appellant in response to notice dated

05.02.2022”.

4.4 In view of aforesaid and so also in view of submissions made

by Ld. DR we are of the considered view that in both the orders of

the lower authorities below i.e. the Ld. A.O and the Ld. CIT(A)

income of the assessee is not computed in a manner known to

law. This tribunal desires computation of the real income of the

assessee exigible to tax in accordance with law by following due

process. We therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the present case and so also by perusing the pages 19 to 23 of

paper book filed noticed that full cash book is not even placed

before us which is claimed to be an audited one by the assessee

and therefore we set aside the “impugned order” and remand

the case to Ld. A.O for passing a fresh order on denovo basis.

The assessee has placed before us on our direction during

hearing acknowledgement No.294634931050322 evidencing full

Page 8 of 10

Kala Jain ITA No. 799/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 cash book filed (after hearing). Be that as it may the assessee is

directed to place all replies with accompaniments so far filed by

him on portal once again and to ensure that all replies with the

accompaniments are on record of Ld. A.O before he proceeds to

adjudge and adjudicate the case. The assessee is also at liberty

to file additional reply and submissions if they so desire before

fresh adjudication commences before Ld. A.O on denovo basis.

5.1 In the premises, we set aside the “impugned order” as and

by of remand back to Ld. A.O on denovo basis.

5.2 In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 30.06.2025.

Sd/- Sd/-

(B.M. BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore िदनांक / Dated : 30/06/2025 Dev/Sr. PS

Page 9 of 10

Kala Jain ITA No. 799/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

By order COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 10 of 10