RISHABH KUMAR JAIN,BHOPAL vs. ITO, BHOPAL
Facts
The assessee, a senior citizen aged 78, filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A) which dismissed his first appeal. The appeal before the Tribunal suffered a significant delay, attributed to issues with the assessee's advocate and his health. The assessee had been assessed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it for hearing. It noted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity before the CIT(A) and that the impugned order was illegal and bad in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a denovo hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A), leading to an order that is illegal and bad in law.
Sections Cited
253, 147, 143(3), 246A, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee u/s 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/250/2023-24/
1061557955(1) dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s
Page 1 of 6
Risabh Kumar Jain ITA. No.60/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2012-13
250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned
order”. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13 and the
corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2011 to
31.03.2012.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2.1 At the outset and at threshold we notice that the Tribunal
registry has pointed out delay of 259 days in preferring the
instant appeal. We observe and notice that the “impugned
order” is dated 27.02.2024. The date of service of order in Form
36 is shown as 27.02.2024. The appeal is e-filed on 14.01.2025.
Hence appeal is fixed beyond statutory time limit of 60 days. The
assessee has filed condonation of delay application along with an
affidavit in support. The Ld. AR has pointed out to us during the
hearing that the assessee is a very senior citizen aged 78. It is
also pointed out that he had engaged the service of one N.S.
Thakur, Advocate aged 70 to handle his income tax affairs. Shri
N.S. Thakur, Advocate who besides him is also a senior citizen
and is not well versed with computer working. He was not
keeping good health too. Shri N.S. Thakur, Advocate had not
informed him that an appellate order is passed. That he changed
Page 2 of 6
Risabh Kumar Jain ITA. No.60/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2012-13
his advocate and then learnt that an appellate order is passed
against him. In the process there was delay as aforesaid. Per
contra Ld. DR for Revenue has no objection if this Tribunal in it’s
wisdom deems fit to condone the delay. The Ld. AR has prayed
for condonation of delay in rejoinder too. Accordingly after
perusing the condonation of delay along with affidavit in support
we condone the delay. The appeal is admitted and taken up for
hearing.
2.2 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 147
r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act the assesee’s total income exigible to tax
was computed and assessed at Rs.61,87,661/- . Additions were
made to his returned income of Rs.9,96,870/-. That aforesaid
assessment order is dated 04.12.2019 which is hereinafter
referred to as the “impugned assessment order”.
2.2 That the assessee assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid
“impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of
the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has
dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee by way of “impugned
order” on reasons specified therein.
Page 3 of 6
Risabh Kumar Jain ITA. No.60/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2012-13
2.6 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, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO and Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant had sufficient cash available for depositing cash in Bank accounts and particularly in view that cash was also available out of the sale of plots on which STCG was paid and assessed by ld. AO. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the reassessment order passed by AO, which was without jurisdiction and bad-in- law.
That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the 3 reassessment order passed by AO u/s. 148 because proper opportunity was not given to the appellant before framing appellate order. 4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO was not justified in making and ld. CIT(A) was not justified in maintaining addition of Rs. 33,03,309/- on account of cash deposited in bank accounts. 5. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not adjudicating ground taken by the appellant that the STCG shown at Rs. 6,97,000/-ought to have been accepted by the Id. AO.
That, the appellant craves your leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing”.
Record of Hearing
3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on
17.06.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee
Page 4 of 6
Risabh Kumar Jain ITA. No.60/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2012-13
appeared before us and interalia contended that the “impugned
order” is illegal, not proper and bad in law. It is in violation of
the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR pleaded before us
that since assessee is a senior citizen and is not keeping good
health he remained non responsive to the notice(s) issued by Ld.
CIT(A). Our attention was also brought to Form No.35 where e-
mail id was shown as narendrethakur85902@gmailcom in column
No.17 where all notice(s) from Office of CIT(A) must have gone. It
was contended that a last opportunity be granted to the assessee
to appear before CIT(A) so that all contentions could be put
through across him. Per contra Ld. DR has no objection if matter
is relegated back to the file of CIT(A) if this Tribunal deems it fit
and appropriate.
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.
4.3 We basis records of the case so also after hearing and upon
examining the contentions are of the considered opinion that the
Page 5 of 6
Risabh Kumar Jain ITA. No.60/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2012-13
“impugned order” should be set aside and one last opportunity
should be afforded to the assessee to present his case in fruitful
manner before Ld. CIT(A). Hence we set aside the “impugned
order” and remand the case to CIT(A) on denovo basis.
Order
5.1 In the premises “impugned order” is set aside as and by
way of remand to CIT(A) on denovo basis.
5.2 In result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 19.06.2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Indore िदनांक / Dated : 19/06/2025 Dev/Sr. PS 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 6 of 6
