RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

आदेश / O R D E R

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 brevity] before this Tribunal as & by way of second

appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing

Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075676936(1) dated

Page 1 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 2 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 17.04.2025 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 2018-19 and the corresponding

previous year period is from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018.

2.1 That as and by way of an order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act,

bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/271AAC(1)/2023-24/1056519467(1)

dated 25.09.2023 a penalty of Rs. 26,65,125/- u/s

271AAC(1) was imposed on the assessee being 10% on tax

payable u/s 115BBE of the Act, which is herein after referred

to as the “Impugned Penalty Order”. In the impugned penalty

order following is recorded-

comments from report of VU/TU, if any.

As the assessee has not responded to any of the notices

issued by this office, the notices and letters were sent to

the Verify of the unit for service of the same. The

Page 2 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 3 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 Verification Unit served the letter on the assessee. Still,

there is no response from the assessee till date.

including analysis of case law relied upon

The assessee has not responded to any of the notices /

letters issued by this office.

a. It is verified from the CPC portal, Insight portal and

360 degree profile, the assessee has not preferred appeal

against the assessment order for the year under

consideration. In the absence of any verifiable

documentary evidence and from the assessee, the AO

completed the assessment and it is concluded that the

assesee has nothing to explain regarding the nature and

source of the cash deposits and hence added to the total

income under sec. 69 of the IT Act. Further penalty

proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act are being initiated

Page 3 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 4 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 separately for unexplained cash deposits u/s. 69 r.w.s.

115 BBE of the IT Act.

b) This case was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 on

the basis of the information that the assessee has made

cash deposit of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- in its bank account

maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. during the year. It is

further seen that the assessee has not filed his return of

income for A.Y. 2018-19. In the absence of return of

income and related accounts, the sources of cash deposit

in bank account remains unexplained. As the income to

the extent of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- has escaped from the

assessment, the same is brought to tax and penalty

proceedings under sec. 271AAC(1) are initiated. In view

of the above detailed reasons and non compliance from

the assessee, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of

penalty u/s 271AAC(1) Aof Income tax Act. Hence, the

assessee is liable to pay penalty of 10% percent of the

amount of tax payable u/s 115BBE of the Income tax Act.

Page 4 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 5 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 8. COMPUTATION OF PENALTY

Hence, the assessee is liable to pay penalty of 10%

percent of the amount of tax payable u/s 115BBE of the

Income tax Act.

Sl. Description Amount in Rs. No. i Income chargeable to tax under the Rs. 3,45,00,000/- provisions of Sce. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ii Tax on 115BBE@60% Rs. 2,07,00,000/- iii Surcharge @ 25% of tax on demand Rs. 51,75,000/- income chargeable u/s 115BBE iv Education cess @ 3% on (ii)+(iii) Rs. 7,76,250/- v Net tax payable (ii)+(iii)+(iv) Rs. 2,66,51,250/- vi Penalty leviable u/s 271AAC(1) being Rs. 26,65,125/- 10% on tax payable u/s 115BBE vii Rounded u/s 288A Rs. 26,65,125/-

In view of the above reasons, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s under section 271AAC(1) of the Income tax Act., to the tune of Rs. 26,65,125/-. The penalty u/s 271AAC(1) is being imposed after the prior approval of the Competent Authority i.e Range Head as per the provisions laid down in Section 274(2) of the

Page 5 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 6 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 Income Tax Act, 1961. This demand should be paid as per the demand notice enclosed.”

2.2 That the assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Impugned Penalty Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A

of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order”

has dismissed the 1st appeal of the Assessee on the grounds &

reasons stated therein. The core grounds & reasons for the

dismissal of the 1st appeal are as under:-

“3. It is clear from the above that the order u/s

271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was made on

25.09.2023 which got served upon the appellant on

25.09.2023 but the appeal was filed on 22.11.2024with

a delay of 394days [424 days (from 25.09.2023 to

22.11.2024) 30days] i.e. beyond prescribed time of 30

days, whereas, the appellant was required to file

appeal within 30 days as provided vide section 249(2)

on receipt of order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax

Act, 1961. The appellant has sought condonation of

delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order

Page 6 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 7 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 dated 25.09.2023, which was admittedly appealable

up to 23.10.2023. The delay has been attributed to the

appellant's lack of education and unawareness of the

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147

of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is also contended that

the reassessment and subsequent penalty proceedings

were conducted under the Faceless Scheme, and that

all communications were sent to an email address

which allegedly did not belong to the assessee. The

appellant came to know about the proceedings only

when approached by the jurisdictional tax authorities

for recovery of demand. Thereafter, on consulting a tax

professional, the appeal was filed along with a request

for condonation of delay.

While the appellant has placed reliance on his lack of

education and knowledge of the proceedings, it is to be

noted that under the Faceless Scheme, communications

are made electronically through the registered email ID

and the e-filing portal, which is the responsibility of the

Page 7 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 8 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 assessee to maintain and monitor. Ignorance of

statutory proceedings and failure to update or verify

contact details on the official tax portal cannot be

treated as sufficient cause under the law. The law

mandates a reasonable standard of diligence and

responsibility in tax matters, and mere reliance on lack

of education or absence of awareness, without any

proactive steps taken to ensure compliance, does not

constitute a justifiable ground to condone delay. The

explanation offered is general in nature, lacks

corroborative evidence beyond an affidavit, and does

not inspire confidence that the delay was due to

reasons entirely beyond the appellant's control.

Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and

therefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT

Act, I am not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient

cause for not presenting the appeal within the specified

period. Hence, since, appeal was not filed within

Page 8 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 9 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 prescribed time as provided in the section 249(2) of the

IT Act, the same is not admitted.

statistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated

on merits.

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal

on 02.02.2026 when all the three appeals of the assessee i.e.

ITA No. 533/IND/2025, 534/IND/2025 & 535/IND/2025 were

listed for hearing. They were heard all together with the

consent of both the parties. It was submitted by the Ltd AR

that the assessee is an individual & deals with grain. It was

submitted that the “Impugned Penalty Order” was dated

25.09.2023 & first appeal was filed on 28.11.2024. It was

submitted that first appeal is required to be filed within 30

days but since there was delay (394 days0, a condonation of

Page 9 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 10 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 delay was sought in the form No. 35 wherein the following was

avered :

Kindly refer to above subject, Rajesh Kumar Rathore,

the appellant and assessed to Income Tax Officer,

Ward- Sehore, in this regard, we would like to submit

as under That, the penalty order in the appellants case

for A.Y. 2018-19 was passed on 25.09.2023. The above

referred order was appealable with-in 30 days from

25.09.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, appeal

should have been filed on or before 23.10.2023.

Appellant under genuine belief, however, could not do

so for the following reasons:

That the appellant concerned i.e. Mr. Rajesh Kumar

Rathore is not well educated. Appellant was not even

aware that his case has been selected for reassessment

proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and

the reassessment proceedings were conducted under

Faceless Scheme. All the notices, order etc. were only

served on mail address registered on e-filling portal.

Page 10 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 11 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 During the course of reassessment and penalty

proceedings, E-mail address registered on assessee's E-

filling portal was shyamsundermantri@yahoo.in which

does not pertained to the assessee.

That, due to lack of education and knowledge, no

compliance has been done by the assessee and

therefore assessment order was passed u/s 144.

Further, on follow-up by jurisdictional officers for

demand recovery proceedings, the assessee came to

know of the completed assessment proceedings for A.Y.

2018-19 and the alleged additions made in his case.

Furthermore, the appellant has a consulted the tax

consultant and discussed about the notices issued by

the department and has come to know about the

compliance to be made in past which were not made

and he is advised by the consultant to appeal against

the order passed by the Ld. AO, to pray for condonation

of delay in filling of appeal and present his case before

the Hon'ble CIT (A). That, the appellant assures Your

Page 11 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 12 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 Honor that full cooperation will be extended by the

appellant in the appeal proceedings. The appellant is

duly submitting the affidavit to reaffirm his explanation

regarding reason for delay in filling of appeal.

In view of above facts and circumstances, the delay

may kindly be condoned

Prayer

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that since the

delay in filling of appeal is unintentional, bona fide and

the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause due

to reason mentioned above, the delay in filling of this

appeal may very kindly be condoned so that justice

may be done.

I would request Your Honor to kindly condone the delay

and entertain the appeal on merit."

The Ld. CIT (A) in the “Impugned Order” has not considered

the above application/COD & has rejected the first appeal as

Page 12 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 13 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 according to him the assessee ought to have been proactive &

must ensure compliance. It was also submitted that

“Impugned Penalty Order” too was ex-parte. It was submitted

that the Quantum & Penalty proceedings were conducted in the

faceless manner. The e-mail address on the portal was

shyamsundarmantri@yahoo.in which does not pertained to the

assessee. That due to lack of education & knowledge, no

compliance has been done by the assessee & the Quantum

Assessment Order was passed u/s 144. It is only upon follow

ups by the JAO for demand, the assessee came to know of the

completed assessment proceedings for AY 2018-19. Reliance

was placed on Affidavit dt. 09.11.2024. It was averred therein

that in the quantum reassessment proceedings e-mails were

sent on shyamsundarmantri@yahoo.in which does not

pertained to the assessee. It was averred therein that due

compliance for want of inadequate information & knowledge,

wrong e-mail on portal regd. etc were reasons for non-

compliance & representation. The copy of ack No.

936397151160425 was tendered across bar to demonstrate

that a reply was filed before the NFAC, Delhi to keep in Page 13 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 14 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 abeyance the Penalty Proceedings till disposal of Quantum

Appeal. It was also urged that the aforesaid e-mail was of

assessee’s erstwhile counsel with whom some dispute occurred

& same e-mail remained in the system. Hence non-compliance

occurred. It was also urged that the assessee is not a regular

e-filer. It was submitted that the “Impugned Order” be set

aside & the matter be remanded. Per contra the Ld. DR

appearing for & on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the

“Impugned Order” may be set aside if the Tribunal deems fit

& matter to be remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO for de

novo adjudication after condoning delay.

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival submission

canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

Page 14 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 15 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 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 view that the

“Impugned Penalty Order” is not on merits & the “Impugned

Order” of the CIT(A) has dismissed the first appeal by not

condoning the delay. We observe that the Ld. AR has

demonstrated before us during the hearing that there are

sufficient causes for the delay & even the Ld. DR has not raised

any serious argument opposing the condonation aspect of the

matter which was sole ground for rejection of first-appeal

before the CIT(A). We additionally hold that basis the

application for the “Condonation of Delay” along with “An

Affidavit in support” before the Ld. CIT(A) which we have

reproduced above (supra), we observe that it was contended by

the assessee that he is not well educated & had no knowledge

about his case that it was selected for reassessment u/s 147 of

the Act & that the reassessment proceedings are now

conducted in faceless manner. E-mail address was of

shyamsundermantri@yahoo.in which did not belong to the

assessee. It is stated on the “Affidavit” that compliance could Page 15 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 16 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 not be done due to wrong e-mail on the portal and so also

representation. Later upon engaging Tax consultant, he was

advised to file the first appeal & he learnt about non

compliance made by him in the past. These reasons according

to us are reasonable and fair as it is supported by the Affidavit

too. In hearing the Ld. AR has fairly stated that e-maid Id

address was of the assessee’s erstwhile counsel with whom

relationship got soured. In the circumstances we deem it fit to

condone the delay. Further, the assessee had filed a reply to

the Ld. CIT(A) to keep penalty proceedings in abeyance (supra).

We further observe that notices u/s 271AAC(1) dt. 6/3/2023,

12/6/2023, 26/07/2023 & 18/08/2023 all had come on e-mail

id shyamsundermantri@yahoo.in which was of the erstwhile

counsel of the assessee hence there was non compliances at the

original stage of the proceedings Under these facts &

circumstances, we set aside the “Impugned Order” & remand

the case back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication &

adjudgement on de novo basis. We direct the assessee to

furnish the Deptt. all details, reply, submissions on merits of

Page 16 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 17 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 the case before the Ld. AO including his latest e-mail Id & that

of his counsel.

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 & well reasoned order by taking into

consideration overall facts & circumstances of the assesse’s case

including Quantum Assessment Order.

5 Order

5.1 In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

remand back to the file of the Ld. AO.

5.2. In result, appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Pronounced in open court on 19.02.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore Dated : 19 /02 /2026 SN Page 17 of 18

Rajesh Kumar Rathore 18 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025

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 18 of 18