LAXMI KANT DUBEY, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI
Facts
The assessee challenged reassessment proceedings, the validity of assessment without a 143(2) notice, and the notice under section 148 read with section 151. The Assessing Officer had made additions for unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 12,05,000/- under section 69A and other income of Rs. 73,122/- as the assessee failed to respond to notices. The CIT(A) set aside the best judgment assessment and remanded the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee's appeal to the Tribunal was delayed by 280 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 280-day delay in filing the appeal, citing professional advice as sufficient cause and adopting a liberal approach in line with Supreme Court precedents. On merits, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication under Section 251. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed.
Key Issues
Condonation of 280-day delay in filing the appeal; legality of reassessment proceedings u/s 147; validity of assessment order without 143(2) notice and u/s 148 notice/151 approval; and the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment and remand for de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 143(2), Section 148, Section 151, Section 253(3), Section 142(1), Section 251, Section 144, Section 69A, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 18.10.2024 for the assessment year 2013-14 as per the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in confirming initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 being illegal and without jurisdiction for it was initiated without fulfilling all the conditions specified in the Act. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in confirming assessment order passed treating income tax return filed as invalid and completing the assessment without issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. assessing officer has erred in issuing notice u/s.148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on invalid approval u/s.151 of the Act, being undated and without DIN because it is not ascertainable whether the approval was given before or after the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 4. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, omit all or any of the grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority.”
At the very outset, it is noted that this appeal is time barred by 280 days. That explaining reasons for the said delay, the assessee had filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit, dated 25.10.2025. The relevant contents of the said affidavit are extracted as follows:
3 Laxmi Kant Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.595/RPR/2025
4 Laxmi Kant Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.595/RPR/2025
The assessee vide the aforesaid affidavit states that he was provided with wrong professional advice, for which, the said delay had occurred. The department at the same time has not brought on record any evidence suggesting malafide or deliberate intent on the part of the assessee for causing such delay. In this background, it would be relevant to point out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay.
That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 4. case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting
5 Laxmi Kant Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.595/RPR/2025
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken in condoning the delay when limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs the substantial justice. In other words, the objective of the court should be to deliver substantial justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Considering the entire factual spectrum and guidance provided in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the said delay of 280 days involved in the present appeal is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the matter, at the time of hearing an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected since already sufficient opportunities have been provided to the assessee as per the order sheet entries wherein hearing of the matter was scheduled on 27.10.2025, 27.11.2025, 04.12.2025 and finally today i.e. on 15.12.2025. Therefore, the matter is heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the documents available on record in
6 Laxmi Kant Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.595/RPR/2025
view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod Vs. Gopal and Ors., passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 14117-14118 of 2021, order dated 20.09.2021.
Coming to the merits of this case, assessment has been completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 20.09.2021 for A.Y.2013-14. The A.O had issued statutory notices to the assessee in order to enquire regarding the source of cash deposits in his bank account. However, in spite of reasonable opportunities, the assessee had not responded to such hearing notices. The A.O noted that as per AIR information, the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.12,05,000/- during the year under consideration and the entire amount of such cash deposits was added in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Further, as per AIR information, the A.O observed that the assessee has received interest amounting to Rs.65,784/- and commission/brokerage of Rs.7,338/- for F.Y.2012-13 relevant to A.Y.2013-14. That since the assessee has not provided any explanation towards these receipts of income, it was added in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources at Rs.73,122/-.
In this regard, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has held and observed as follows: “6.0 DECISION:
7 Laxmi Kant Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.595/RPR/2025
On careful perusal of the assessment order, Form 35, grounds of appeal, statement of facts and the submission made of the appellant, the grounds of appeal it is noticed that the appellant has filed the copy of the bank statement as proof for his claim that the source of cash deposit is out of the cash withdrawals made by him and partly from his accumulated savings from the past. It is apparent from the assessment order that the appellant has not furnished the above details to the AO during the assessment proceedings. Hence, taking the overall facts of the case into careful consideration, in my opinion to meet the ends of natural justice. in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, wherein it is stipulated that in cases where an assessment order has been passed as a "best judgment" assessment under Section 144, the Commissioner (Appeals) is vested with the authority to set aside such an assessment and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation. The present appeal challenges the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, based on a "best judgment" determination. 7.1.4 In the interest of upholding the principles of natural justice and exercising the powers conferred upon the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 251 of the Act, the case is hereby remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the grounds raised by the appellant stand annulled and are remitted to the Assessing Officer for afresh reconsideration 8. In light of the above, the appeal is 'SET ASIDE'.”
The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had observed that on these issues of cash deposits and income from other sources, the assessee has not provided any details/evidences and the assessment has been completed u/s. 144 of the Act, therefore, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC as per the power conferred on him u/s. 251 of the Act after amendment, the matter
8 Laxmi Kant Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.595/RPR/2025
was remanded to the file of the A.O for denovo adjudication as per law. Therefore, in this regard, I do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is upheld.
As per the above terms, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 15th day of December, 2025.
Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 15th December, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur
