NIRMAL RAMTANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

· For the AY 2016-17 was computed & Assessed as Rs.

8,97,020/-

· For the AY 2017-18 was computed & Assessed as Rs.

9,26,430/-

Page 2 of 13

Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16

· For the AY 2018-19 was computed & Assessed as Rs.

10,73,490/- respectively.

That the Aforesaid Assessment Order which was a

consolidated one bears No.DCIT-(Cen)/I/BPL/2019-20/1664

& the same was dated 27.12.2019 which is herein after

referred to as the “ Consolidated Impugned Assessment

order”

2.2 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Consolidated 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 & reasons stated therein.

2.3 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned

order” has Preferred the instant second Appeal before this

tribunal & has raised the following grounds of Appeal in the

Form No. 36 for A.Y.2014-14 against the “Impugned order”

which are as under:-

Page 3 of 13

Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16

“01. That a proper and meaningful opportunity has not been afforded to the assessee to put-up her Defense and as such the Assessment Order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) together with Appellate Order of the Id. CIT-Appeals-3, Bhopal are in contravention of principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be quashed. 02. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the following additions made by the Id. A.O. and sustained by the id. CIT- Appeals are absolutely arbitrary and unlawful, which deserve to be deleted: a) Addition on Account of Disallowance of claim under Chapter-VI Rs. 1,00,000/- b)Addition on Account of Undisclosed Salary Income- Rs. 4,80,000/- 03. The Id. CIT (Appeal) has ignored/overlooked to consider the evidences and explanation furnished by the appellant and as such entire order has become arbitrary and baseless which deserves to be quashed. 04. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that when the department has carried out search operations at the various premises of the assessee the determination of income should not have been made arbitrarily on presumptions or hypothesis but should have been linked to the assets actually found as unexplained in the said search operations. 05. That Id. A.O. has erred under law in passing the Consolidated Assessment Order dated 27.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19 with the approval of Addl. CIT, instead of specified/designated competent Authority mentioned u/s 153D i.e. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, the Assessment Order passed is null and void and deserves to be quashed. 06.That Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Bhopal has erred in approving the impugned Assessment Order dated 27.12.2019 mechanically within no time of receiving the same, without application of mind and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and as such the Order passed by the Id. A.O. u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) is null & void. 07. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any Ground of Appeal on or before the date of hearing or course of hearing or final decision in the Appeal.”

Page 4 of 13

Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16

3.1 The Hearing in the Matter took place before this

tribunal on 05.01.2026 & 06.01.2026 [ITA No.

634/Ind/2025] when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the

Assessee appeared before us & Interalia contended that the

“Impugned order” is illegal, bad in Law & not Proper. It is in

the violation of the Principles of natural justice too. It thus

deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that there is a

delay of about 84 days in preferring the instant Appeal & in

this regard a Condonation of delay Application is placed on

record along with an affidavit in support thereof. It was

submitted that the Assessee is a senior citizen & not even

know how to operate a computer/Laptop. She does not visit

income tax site nor does she checks her personal ITBA

Account to ascertain in any income tax Proceedings are going

on & / or notices/orders served upon her. It was also

submitted by the Ld. AR that the Assessee has on earlier

occasion had engaged the services of a senior Chartered

Accountant Sh. MK Sharma who used to e-file the Return of

Page 5 of 13

Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16

income & was supposed to keep an eye on the ITBA Portal for

the due Compliances. The said Shri MK Sharma was a senior

citizen & was suffering from heart disease & he expired in

the year 2021. The “Impugned order” on portal came on

25.02.2025 however the Assessee did not come to know

about it nor her CA. In ITR of her the mail id is of Late Shri

MK Sharma CA & neither he nor his juniors never ever

informed the Assessee about the “Impugned order” dated

25.02.2025. It was also submitted that the “Impugned

order” was not delivered to the Assessee by registered

post/courier as well. The Appeal ought to have been filed on

or before 26.04.2025 however due to reasons as submitted

above the same came to be filed on 19.07.2025 with delay of

84 days. The delay is not deliberate & was a bonafide one.

Hence the delay be condoned & appeal be admitted. Reliance

was placed on an Affidavit too. The Ld. DR has placed on

record of this tribunal a three pages synopsis of case law &

finally contended that delay should not be condoned by this

Tribunal. We after going through the contents of the

Page 6 of 13

Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16

condonation of delay application including an Affidavit in

support thereof are of the considered view that the delay is

not abnormal. It is not deliberate. Hence we condone the

delay as sufficient cause is shown. Accordingly we admit the

Appeal.

3.2 The ld. AR then submitted that search and seizure action

under section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was

conducted on 04.08.2017 at premises belonging to Pradeep

Saraiya and associates. This group is mainly engaged in

business activities of real estate, construction and education.

The key persons of the group are Shri Pradeep Saraiya, Shri

Siddharth Saraiya, Shri Santosh Ramtani, Shri Vikas

Ramtani, Shri Sandeep Ramtani etc. The Group is promoted

by Shri Pradeep Saraiya and his family members. The main

concerns of the group are Suarabhi Homes Pvt. Ltd. Shreeji

Infrastuctures and Developers, Surabhi lifespaces Pvt. Ltd.

Shreeji builders and Developers, Derby Homes Pvt. Ltd. and

Shri ji Builders and Developers. The assessee is also a

Page 7 of 13

Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16

member of 'Pradeep Saraiya group', and wife of Shri Santosh

Ramtani who is key person of the group. In this case, the

search and seizure operation was carried out on 04/08/2017

in pursuance of the Warrant of Authorization u/s 132(1) of

the IT Act issued by Pr. Director of Income Tax

(Investigation), Bhopal at A-1, Surabhi Bangalow, Inside D.K.

Desthali, E-8. Extension, Bawadiya Kala, Bhopal. Further,

the search and seizure operation was also conducted in

pursuance of Warrant of Authorization u/s 132(1) of the IT

Act issued by It. Director of Income Tax (Investigation),

Bhopal at Locker No. 30, SBI, Link Road, No. 1 Branch,

Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal. During the search, it is revealed that

the assessee is working on the post Treasurer/administrator

in the Satyam Education and social Welfare Society. In this

regard, vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 14/10/2019,

the assessee was requested to furnish the details of

remuneration and other perks from Satyam Education and

Welfare Society during the AY 2012-13 to 2018-19. The Ld.

AR then invited our attention to the order of this tribunal

Page 8 of 13

Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16

dated 04.12.2025 in case No. IT(SS) 96-106/Ind/2024 (AY

2008-09 to 2018-19) titled M/s Satyam education v/s

DCIT Central-I Bhopal & submitted that the facts &

circumstances of this case are pari materia with the facts &

circumstances of the instant appeals were in the issue is

remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the

issue a fresh after giving opportunities to the Assessee.

Therefore a prayer was made that even these six appeals too

which are inter connected the present “Impugned order”

should too be set aside with directions to the Ld. CIT(A) to

give necessary opportunities to the Assessee herein. It was

submitted that the Assessee shall avail those opportunities &

would cooperate with the Department. Per contra the Ld. DR

too invited our attention to the above order of ITAT, Indore &

placed reliance on Para 8,9,10 &11 of the order which we

reproduce as below:-

“8. Replying to same, Ld. DR for revenue opposed the request of Ld. AR. He submitted that the CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities to assessee but it is the assessee who remained non-compliant. He submitted that the first-appeals before CIT(A) were filed by assessee and the assessee was required to file details/documents for resolution of his grievances. He submitted that even if there was death of counsel, the assessee could file at least some basic details to CIT(A) but that

Page 9 of 13

Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16

was also not done. He submitted that it was a failure of assessee and the CIT(A) has rightly passed impugned order on the basis of material held on record, hence there is no infirmity in the action or order of CIT(A). He also referred Para 9.2 of assessment-order to show that even during assessment-proceedings, the assessee has remained non-compliant to some extent as noted by AO. He submitted that during Covid-19 pandemic, the departmental authorities were working regularly and the assessee is wrongly pushing the excuse of Covid-19 pandemic. He raised one more contention that the assessee must have made regular compliances like filing of returns to income-tax department, audit of accounts, etc. from time to time and the failure is only in prosecuting these matters before CIT(A), therefore the failure is deliberate and not attributable to anyone except assessee itself. Finally, Ld. DR submitted that the assessee does not deserve any sympathy and the order passed by CIT(A) must be upheld and these appeals of assessee must be dismissed.” 9. In re-joinder, Ld. AR re-emphasized that the non-compliances before CIT(A) had occurred due to the deadlock in the office/management of “Shri M.K. Sharma” and non-availability of the documents/records of search to assessee since the same were in the custody of “Shri M.K. Sharma”. He submitted that owing to his personal relation with the partners/successors of “Shri M.K. Sharma”, he is somehow able to obtain death certificate of “Shri M.K. Sharma” and make it available to the Secretary of society. He submitted that the regular compliances done by assessee, if any, are nothing to do with the search proceedings because in search proceedings, the documents of earlier years were involved which remained in possession of “Shri M.K. Sharma” and not available to assessee. 10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and carefully perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the affidavit submitted by Secretary of assessee-society re-produced above. The assessee is a charitable society engaged in imparting education and social welfare activities. At the relevant time, the assessee was having registration granted by Income-tax Department u/s 12AA and claiming exemption u/s 11/12. Then, there was a search u/s 132 upon assessee on 04.08.2017 and substantial issues have surfaced/emerged during search operations and those issues were part of assessment proceedings framed by AO u/s 153A/143(3). The assessee was represented by “Shri M.K. Sharma” during assessment- proceedings and compliances to the notices issued by AO were duly made; this fact is very much acknowledged by AO in Para 6.0 of assessment-order. Ultimately, the AO has passed assessment-order u/s 143(3) and not ex-parte u/s 144 although there might be non-

Page 10 of 13

Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16

furnishing of details qua some of the issues/queries raised by AO. Thereafter, first-appeals were also filed by “Shri M.K. Sharma” on 31.01.2020/01.02.2020. The CIT(A) fixed first hearing on 20.03.2020 at the time when Covid-19 pandemic was in full swing. Thereafter, the hearings fixed during 29.06.2020 to 10.02.2022 were also during Covid-19 pandemic. A further unfortunate happening was that the assessee’s counsel “Shri M.K. Sharma” expired on 13.12.2020. The assessee sought adjournments from CIT(A) on 09.02.2022 & 28.08.2024 on the footing that it was in the process of collecting and gathering information required to make submissions; this fact is very much noted by CIT(A) in Para 1.2 of impugned order and this reflects the assessee’s willingness to make submissions to CIT(A). However, as per assessee’s averment in affidavit/Ld. AR’s submission, there was a deadlock in the office/management of “Shri M.K. Sharma” rendering the assessee unable to make submissions. Thus, considering entire conspectus of case; having regard to the point that the assessee is a charitable society and that the present matters involve substantial issues emanating from search-proceedings which require a bi-party adjudication by CIT(A) and also in order to grant substantial justice to assessee, we agree to the request made by Ld. AR for assessee and re- store these cases at the level of CIT(E) for adjudication afresh. We, however, impose a consolidated cost of Rs. 20,000/- for all years upon assessee for any lethargy which might have occurred on the part of assessee in making compliances before CIT(A) and also to offset the revenue’s efforts in dealing assessee’s case. The assessee shall pay such cost to Income-tax Department through a suitable challan and submit proof of payment to CIT(A). Needless to mention that the CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunities to assessee and the assessee shall avail those opportunities and the CIT(A) shall pass a judicious order without being influenced by his earlier order in any manner. 11. Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.” 4. Observations, Findings& Conclusions

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.

Page 11 of 13

Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16

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 contentions are of the considered view that

the facts & circumstances of the instant 6(six)Appeals are

more or less identical & similar to the facts & circumstances

of Satyam education and social welfare society [Supra]

& are inter connected. Accordingly we set aside the

“Impugned order” & remand the case back to the file of the

CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on denovo basis after giving the

reasonable opportunities to the Assessee to present her case.

4.4 In view of the premises drawn up by us, we set aside the

“Impugned order” & remand the case back to the file of the

Ld. CIT(A) on denovo basis, with directions as aforesaid.

5.1 In result-Impugned order is set aside as and by way of

remand back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with directions as aforesaid.

Page 12 of 13

Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16

5.2. In result, appeals are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 09.01.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

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

Indore Dated : 09 /01/2026 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 13 of 13