MATEL HARDWARE,RAJKOT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 3(1)(1), RAJKOT

ITA 204/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Matel Hardware, the appellant, contesting an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which was initially passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant challenged the addition of cash deposits amounting to Rs.97,88,124, which were part of total cash sale proceeds. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, leading to the filing of an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the appellate order and decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer, allowing the appellant another opportunity to present his case with all relevant documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716420 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY DHOLARIYA; LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,राजकोट Ûयायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 204/RJT/2025 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Matel Hardware Shrddha Park Street No.2, Shrddha Park Main Road, Ram Chowk, Rajkot-360002 बनाम /Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhawan, Rajkot-360001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAZFM6158L (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे/Appellant by : Shri Ajay Dholariya, Ld. A.R. राजèवकȧओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकȧतारȣख/Date of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Order (AY) 2016-17, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”,dated 28.11.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 26.03.2022. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the treatment of the AO by confirming addition of cash deposits of Rs.97,88,124/- out of total cash sale proceeds of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.204/RJT/2025 A.Y.16-17 Matel Hardware Rs.98,25,300/- ignoring the established fact that the entire sale proceeds cannot be treated as income of an assessee. 2. The CIT(A) erred in making baseless addition of entire cash sales of Rs.97,88,124/- wrongly presuming that the assessee got 100% net profit from the entire cash sales. Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or withdraw the ground(s) of appeal at the time or before the hearing of this appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 55 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee was suffering severe chest pain and was badly engaged for his medical treatment ( relevant medical papers have been submitted before the Bench). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted medical report for perusal of the Bench, and stated that delay was neither wilful nor deliberate, but due to the circumstances beyond his control. The Ld. Counsel requested that in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned and appeal may be decided on merit. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue submitted that Bench may decide the matter of condonation of delay as it thinks fit. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. In the affidavit, it is submitted that assessee was undergone medical treatment and as a result, the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal in time. We note that reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Considering all these facts, we find that delay was not deliberate and intentional, but it was due to medical reason (treatment) of assessee. The Ld. Sr-DR has also not Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.204/RJT/2025 A.Y.16-17 Matel Hardware raised objection to condone the delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 55 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 and Ld.CIT(A) passed appellate order in ex-parte proceedings. The Ld. Counsel submitted that now the assessee is ready with the documents and wants to furnish the details and documents before lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel therefore prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before Assessing Officer. 7. The Ld. Sr-DR of the Revenue has raised no objection, if the matter is remitted back to the file of lower authorities. 8. We have heard both the parties and gone through materials available on record. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee requested to set aside the order of CIT(A) and requested the Bench that matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and undertook the responsibility that all the details would be filed before Assessing Officer, if another opportunity is granted to the appellant. The Ld. Sr-DR has also no objection if the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer. In view of the above facts, we deem it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting adequate and fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is needless to say that assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences, as deemed relevant before the Assessing Officer at the time of de novo assessment Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No.204/RJT/2025 A.Y.16-17 Matel Hardware proceedings, in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order, which is fair and judicious. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 18/08/2025 in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) ÛयाǓयकसदèय/Judicial Member लेखासदèय/ Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 18/08/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant  Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent  आयकरआयुÈत/ CIT  आयकरआयुÈत(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयआͬधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाड[फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेशसे, सहायकपंजीकार आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण, राजकोट Printed from counselvise.com "