AKHILESH PARMAR,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE
Facts
The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 12,50,000/- during demonetization, claiming agricultural income, cash from deceased father, and re-deposit of prior withdrawals as sources. The AO made an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which the CIT(A) upheld ex-parte. The appeal to ITAT was filed with a delay.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing "sufficient cause" under Section 253(5). Due to the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A) order and the need for fresh evidence regarding cash deposits, the tribunal remanded the case to the AO for fresh adjudication with a proper opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal and the addition of cash deposits made during the demonetization period without proper evidentiary consideration.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 253(5)
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
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 01.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Noida [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 07.11.2019 passed by learned ITO-3(2), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 6
Akhilesh Parmar ITA No. 636/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
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
Akhilesh Parmar ITA No. 636/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
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
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 at first submitted that the impugned order of
CIT(A) is a type of ex-parte order wherein the addition made by AO has been
upheld for lack of documentary evidences. Ld. AR thereafter carried us to
the assessment-order wherein the AO has mentioned about scrutiny of cash
deposit of Rs. 12,00,000/- & Rs. 50,000/- made by assessee on 22.11.2016
& 25.11.2016 (during demonetization period), aggregating to Rs.
Page 3 of 6
Akhilesh Parmar ITA No. 636/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
12,50,000/-, made in assessee’s bank a/c. Ld. AR narrated that the
assessee explained three sources of impugned deposits to the AO, namely (i)
the agricultural income earned by assessee, (ii) the cash received by
assessee on death of father on 20.09.2016, and (iii) the re-deposit of
previous cash withdrawals made by assessee from his bank a/cs. However,
the AO has given estimated credit of Rs. 2,50,000/- only from first source i.e.
the agricultural income and made addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The AO has
not given any credit of the second source for lack of documentary evidence
but the assessee is ready to file the require evidence/explanation to the AO.
Further, in so far as the third source is concerned, the AO has made a table
of cash withdrawals on Page No. 2 of assessment-order but the said table
itself is incomplete and gives a few entries of cash withdrawals made by
assessee from bank a/cs whereas the assessee made substantial
withdrawals from different bank a/cs. Apart from that, the AO has made an
omnibus conclusion that the withdrawals made in the financial year 2015-
16 cannot be treated as source of the deposits made in demonetization
period but this conclusion is not correct in the facts of assessee and the
same is also contrary to the judicial decisions where it has been vehemently
accepted that the previous withdrawals re-deposited by assessee in bank
a/c have to be accepted. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee will once again
make an effective representation before AO to satisfy the AO. Therefore, in
this situation, the present matter must be remanded back to the file of AO
for a fresh consideration.
Page 4 of 6
Akhilesh Parmar ITA No. 636/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
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 AO, we remand this matter back to
the file of AO for adjudication afresh. The AO 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.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
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
Page 5 of 6
Akhilesh Parmar ITA No. 636/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18
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
