KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

ITA 657/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 February 202611 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 342 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause' for the delay, citing the death of the original assessee, the subsequent demise of the daughter who was handling the tax affairs, the appellant's age and vulnerability, and issues with electronic communication. The Tribunal relied on the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal admitted the appeal and proceeded with the hearing. Regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the Tribunal noted that the documents submitted by the assessee to explain the investment were not filed before the AO and had not been examined by the CIT(A). Therefore, considering the principle of natural justice and that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the previous order. The assessee was directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in hearings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Late Shri George Jacob, an employee of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Bhopal, did not file a return of income for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO), based on AIR information about an investment of Rs. 10,00,000/- in Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. bonds, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147. Despite notices, the assessee did not comply. The AO made an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained investment. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-representation. The present appeal is filed by the legal heir, Kusum George Jacob, wife of the deceased assessee, after a delay of 342 days. The delay occurred due to the demise of the original assessee, the subsequent demise of the daughter handling the tax affairs, and issues with electronic communication, coupled with the appellant's age and unfamiliarity with the process.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 342 days in filing the appeal can be condoned under Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of sufficient cause. Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances, including the death of the original assessee, the subsequent death of the daughter managing the tax affairs, electronic communications being sent contrary to the specific option exercised in Form No. 35, and the appellant's advanced age and vulnerability. The assessee argued that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The assessee also contended that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not object to the condonation of delay and left it to the wisdom of the bench. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in bonds of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is justified. Assessee's Contention: The assessee attempted to demonstrate that the investment was made from proceeds of retirement benefits from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, submitting documents that were not filed before the AO but were filed before the CIT(A). The assessee acknowledged these as additional evidence requiring verification by the AO. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 133(6),Section 253,Section 253(5),Section 250,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271F,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.02.2026Pronounced: 27/02/2026

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 18.06.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 12.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-2(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147/144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2.

At the outset, we note that the assessee “Shri George Jacob” expired

before completion of assessment-proceedings by AO. Therefore, the AO

Kusum George Jacob (Legal Heir of Late Shri George Jacob) ITA No. 657/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13

passed assessment-order in

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →