SHREERAM CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal as

and by way of a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by

the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2023-

24/1055303221(1) dated 22/08/2023 passed by the Ld.

CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as

the “Impugned order”. The Relevant Assessment year is

Page 1 of 10

Shri Ram Construction ITA No. 480/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18

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

144 of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was

computed & assessed at Rs. 6,92,65,359/-. Income Tax

Return was not filed. The addition of Rs 13,50,000/- was

made u/s 69A of the Act as per para 7.3 of the aforesaid

Assessment order. Further Addition of Rs. 6,79,15,359/- too

was made u/s 69A as per para 7.4 of the aforesaid

Assessment order. That the aforesaid Assessment order

bears No.:-ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1021677272(I) and

that the same is dated 04/12/2019 which is herein after

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 first appeal of the

assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The

Page 2 of 10

Shri Ram Construction ITA No. 480/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18

core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal

was as under:-

“5.1 It is pertinent that in order to decide this appeal in a timely manner a number of notices/ communications through ITBA portal were sent to the appellant, viz. Communications dated 02.03.2021, 26.07.2023, 04.08.2023 and 11.08.2023. However, there evidently has been no response from the appellant till date. There is no gain saying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on its part to purposefully and co-operatively pursue the same in a worthwhile manner, which the appellant has evidently failed to do. It clearly appears that the appellant's compliance or rather lack of it, the appellant has not even bothered to pursue this appeal in any productive manner. Hence, in view of the aforesaid total non-compliance/non prosecution of the instant appeal on the part of the appellant, the instant appeal is adjudicated and disposed off, as under, ex-parte, primarily on the basis documentation available on record. 5.4 It is, thus, evident that the appellant has no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken and it has not even once argued with any supporting, relevant and cogent arguments/averments, constraining me to, therefore, go through the extremely brief non- speaking submission filed along with the impugned appeal to decide on the merits while adjudicating the same. 5.5 The appellant is a non-filer of Return of Income for A.Y. 2017- 18. The Department was in possession of information that the appellant has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 13,50,000/- during the demonetization period of F.Y. 2016-17. Accordingly, statutory notices were issues u/s. 142(1). The appellant failed to reply to notices issued and hence the AO completed the scrutiny assessment to be best of his judgement u/s. 144 of the Act and passed order dated 04.12.2019 after making addition of Rs. 6,92,65,359/- on account of the following :- i) Cash Deposits during demonetization added u/s. 69A of the Act Rs. 15,50,000/- ii) Other credits in Bank Account added u/s. 69A of the Act Rs. 6,79,15,359/- Total Disallowances Rs. 6,92,65,359/-

5.6 It is pertinent to note that even during the instant appellate proceedings, the appellant had chosen to remain silent and failed to substantiate or cooperate by filing the details called for, which shows the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal. However, it was noted that despite several opportunities were

Page 3 of 10

Shri Ram Construction ITA No. 480/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18

given to the appellant, he has not responded for the reasons best known to him. Needless to mention that in order to prove his point, the appellant has to substantiate and back his point by providing relevant details, which he has failed to do so. 5.8 In view of the above, in the pertaining and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the action of the AO for making an addition of Rs. 6,92,65,359/- on account of the following :- 1) Cash Deposits during demonetization added u/s, 69A of the Act Rs. 15,50,000/- ii) Other credits in Bank Account added u/s. 69A of the Act Rs. 6,79,15,359/- Total Disallowances Rs. 6,92,65,359/-

In this view of the matter, the decision of the AO is upheld. Consequently, the Grounds of the appellant are dismissed.

5.9 Before parting, it is trite that an appellate authority is essentially called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him as held in Nirmal Singh and Others of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court [Cr No. 3791 of 2013 (O&M) dated 01.05.2014] and in the absence of any reasonable, cogent and valid arguments/contentions advanced by the appellant in the instant appeal to counter the AO's decision as contained in the assessment order, as mentioned earlier, the additions/disallowances made by the AO is sustained in terms of the observations herein-above. 6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”

2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order”

has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and

has raised the following grounds of appeal in the form no. 36

against the “impugned order” which are as under:-

“1.Ground 1- That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, kindly remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on the merits of the case as per the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal after allowing reasonable opportunity to the appellant to represent its case. 2.Ground 2- That the Assessment Order u/s 144 dated 04/12/2019 be held to be bad in law and on facts and be quashed.

Page 4 of 10

Shri Ram Construction ITA No. 480/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18

3.Ground 3- That the addition of Rs. 13,50,000/- and also the addition of Rs.6,79,15,359/- made u/s 69A both totalling to Rs.6,92,65,359/- made in the case of the appellant be held to be bad and unjustified and be deleted. Ground 4- It be held that when the bank account number 383701010036203 with Union Bank of India was being maintained in the books of Shri Ajit Raghuwanshi and the same had been accepted through scrutiny assessment in his case, the credits in the said bank account cannot be made the basis for assessment in the case of the appellant. The additions made in the case of the appellant on the basis of said bank account be therefore quashed and deleted. 5.Ground 5- In the alternative and without prejudice to the grounds stated above, the addition made and assessed as income of the appellant in the relevant year be held to be high, unreasonable and unjustified and be suitably reduced. Ground 6- The appellant craves leave to add, amend OR alter any Ground of Appeal before OR during the course of appellate proceedings.”

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place on 09/02/2026

when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the Assessee appeared

before us & interalia contended that the “Impugned Order”

is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It is in the violation of the

principles of natural justice. It therefore deserves to be set

aside. It was next contended that the registry has pointed

out the delay of 576 days in filling the Instant second appeal.

It was submitted that the “impugned order” is dated

22/08/2023 and the instant appeal ought to have been filed

on or before 22/10/2023. However the instant appeal was

Page 5 of 10

Shri Ram Construction ITA No. 480/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18

filed on 29/05/2025. A condonation of delay application is

placed on record of this tribunal. With regard to delay it was

submitted that the during the first Appellate Proceedings

before the Ld CIT(A) the hearing notice(s) were sent to the e-

mail Id: surabhi13041993@gmail.com. This email Id

although registered on the Income tax portal does not belong

to the Assessee. This email Id pertained to the article

assistant of the chartered accountant who had assisted

CA of the Assessee in filing of the Income Tax Returns.

After Completing her article-ship the said article assistant

Ceased to be associated with the concerned CA office.

Consequently the hearing Notice(S) and the order u/s 250

were sent to an email Id that was neither controlled nor

monitored by the Assessee hence the assessee never received

the same. Further the “impugned order” was not Received

by Post also. Further the erstwhile counsel of the Assessee

Late Shri Ashwini Rinwa expired on 22/11/2024 and after

his demise the Assessee engaged another Counsel to

Ascertain the Status of the appeal filed against order it was

only then that the Assessee became aware of the “impugned

Page 6 of 10

Shri Ram Construction ITA No. 480/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18

order” passed u/s 250 of the Act. The sudden demise of the

erstwhile Counsel followed by the Process of engaging a new

counsel also added to the delay in filling of the appeal. It was

therefore submitted that the delay is not due to any malafide

fault of the Assessee. It was prayed that the delay be

condoned. Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf

of the Revenue submitted that the Income Tax Dept leaves

the issue of Condonation of delay to the wisdom of this

tribunal after hearing both the parties on the delay we

condone the delay as sufficient cause is demonstrated before

us. Appeal admitted and taken up for hearing.

3.2 The Ld. AR for the Assessee then submitted before this

tribunal that no compliances to any of the notices could be

made before the Ld AO who had passed the impugned

Assessment order as partnership firm was dissolved in the

AY14-15. Insofar as the “Impugned Order” of the ld CIT(A)

is concerned it was submitted that in the form 35 email id

was ajeetro856@gmail.com whereas notice(s) in the first

Appellate proceedings went at e-mail id

surabhi13041993@gmail.com which was created by article

Page 7 of 10

Shri Ram Construction ITA No. 480/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18

clerk of CA as stated earlier. It was stated that Assessee has

a good case on merits too and if one more opportunity is

provided before the ld. AO the Assessee would comply and

make necessary submission on merits of the case. Per

contra the ld DR for the revenue submitted that dept of

income tax has no objection if the liberty is given to the

assessee to present his case on merits before the ld AO a

fresh . Hearing was then concluded.

4.1 We now have to decide the legality validity and the

proprietary 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 and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon

examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR

canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that

“impugned assessment order” is under section 144 of the

Page 8 of 10

Shri Ram Construction ITA No. 480/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18

Act and the matter has not been adjudicated and adjudged

basis merits even the “Impugned Order” is not on merits.

This tribunal desires that the total income of the Assessee

should be computed and assessed on the real time basis

exigible to tax in accordance with law by following the due

process of law under the Act. This Tribunal so expects the

Assessee to be compliant and should co operate with the

Dept as when notice(s) etc are issued. In brief this tribunal

desires the meritorious disposal of both the “Impugned

Assessment order” as well as the “Impugned order”. In

the result we are of the considered opinion that the

“Impugned Order” should be set aside and the matter

should be remanded back to the file of the ld AO for passing

a fresh order on the merits of the case . It is the expectation

of this tribunal that the Assessee would give his full and

complete details including latest e-mails of his and his

counsel where the notices could be served effectively by the

Department. The Assessee to attend hearings as and when

fixed and file reply and details as sought by the ld AO well

within time.

Page 9 of 10

Shri Ram Construction ITA No. 480/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18

4.4 In view of the above, we set aside the “Impugned Order”

and remand the case back to the file of the ld AO on Denovo

basis who shall now pass a speaking and well reasoned

Order.

5 Order

5.1 In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

way of remand back to the file of the Ld. AO.

5.2 In the result, Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Pronounced in open court on 27.02.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore Dated : 27 /02/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 10 of 10