RAJESH GOURISHANKAR,DEWAS vs. OFFICER, DEWAS
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 26.12.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 03.12.2018 passed by learned ITO-1, Dewas [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 6
Rajesh Gourishankar ITA No. 377/Ind/2025 - AY 2011-12
The registry has informed that the present appeal is filed after a delay
and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/affidavit for
condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an
immediate reference:
Page 2 of 6
Rajesh Gourishankar ITA No. 377/Ind/2025 - AY 2011-12
The averments made by assessee in above affidavit, which are self-
explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld.
DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and
accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the
explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or
material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for
delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act
empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if
there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time.
It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land
Page 3 of 6
Rajesh Gourishankar ITA No. 377/Ind/2025 - AY 2011-12
Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387
that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed
to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting
a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the
provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we
take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with
hearing.
Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal
ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any
submission before him despite opportunities given. However, the Ld. CIT(A)
has simply confirmed the order passed by AO but the grounds/issues raised
by assessee in first appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in
accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of
the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and
shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason
for the decision.”.
Ld. AR went ahead to explain that the AO has also passed ex-parte
assessment-order u/s 144 after making an addition of Rs. 72,47,194/- on
account of unexplained deposits in bank but, however, the assessee is
having only one bank a/c with Bank of India in which a cash deposit of Rs.
9,00,000/- was made on 03.09.2010 which was converted into FDR.
However, the AO has made hefty addition of Rs. 72,47,194/- and that too
without giving any details of the sum of Rs. 72,47,194/- in assessment-
Page 4 of 6
Rajesh Gourishankar ITA No. 377/Ind/2025 - AY 2011-12
order. Ld. AR further asserts that the assessee is having interest income
from SB A/c and FDR which has not been taxed by AO. Therefore, in the
situation, the case of assessee requires a detailed re-visit by AO. Ld. AR
acknowledges that the assessee is ready and willing to make an effective
representation before AO and hence the present matter ought to be
remanded back to the file of AO for a fresh consideration.
Ld. DR for revenue agreed to the submission of Ld. AR but made a
request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not
seek unnecessary adjournments.
In view of above, having regard to the principle of natural justice and
also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the
present matter is restored at the level of CIT(A), we remand this matter back
to the file of AO for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) shall give necessary
opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order
uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain
vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and
do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at
liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered
accordingly.
However, we find that the assessee has not made representation
before lower authorities due to which the resources of department are
wasted. Therefore, to offset the revenue’s efforts, we impose a cost of
Page 5 of 6
Rajesh Gourishankar ITA No. 377/Ind/2025 - AY 2011-12
Rs. 2,500/- to be paid by assessee to Income-tax Department through
appropriate challan. It is made clear that the payment of cost shall be a
pre-condition for availing the opportunity of fresh adjudication before AO
and the assessee shall submit a copy of duly paid challan to AO.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject
to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned above.
Order pronounced in open court on 19/02/2026
Sd/- sd/-
(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated : 19/02/2026
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 COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 6 of 6
