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

ITSSA 23/IND/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nirmal Ramtani, who filed a second appeal against the order of the CIT(A) concerning multiple assessment years. The appeals were related to the income assessed under sections 153A and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation. The assessee contested the additions made to her income and claimed that the assessment and subsequent appellate orders violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the assessee's ability to comply with earlier proceedings, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827175 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Satyam education v/s DCIT Central-I Bhopal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORREVENUEOPPOSEDTHEREQUESTOFLD; FORASSESSEEANDRE; SHRIANUPSINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIP.K.JAIN; REGISTERED
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Salary income; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Competent authority
• Section: 144; 143(3); 142(1); 12AA; 132; 153A

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 13 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 (AYs: 2013-14 to 2018-2019) & ITA No.634/Ind/2025 (AY: 2015-16) Nirmal Ramtani, A-1, Surabhi Bungalow, Inside DK Devsthali, Bawadiakalan, Bhopal. (PAN: ACAPR4553P बनाम/ Vs. DCIT-Central-1, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri P.K. Jain, CA Revenue by Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 05.01.2026 & 06.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch of 06 appeals has been filed by the Assesse under section 253 of the income tax Act 1961 [herein after referred to as the Act for sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-CIT(A)-3, Bhopal /IT/11185,11214,11217,11221,11225,11227/2019-20 Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 2 of 13 dated25.02.2025 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 years’ are 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015- 16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 with respective previous years i.e. from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2018 [Collectively for 06 years] 2.1 Factual Matrix That-as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s 153A rws 143(3) of the Act-,the total income. · For the AY 2013-14 was computed & Assessed as Rs. 9,80,900/- · For the AY 2014-15 was computed & Assessed as Rs. 9,85,390/- · For the AY 2015-16 was computed & Assessed as Rs. 11,12,020/- · 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/- Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 3 of 13 · 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:- Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 4 of 13 “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.” Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 5 of 13 3. Records of Hearing 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 Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 6 of 13 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 Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 7 of 13 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 Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 8 of 13 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 Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 9 of 13 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 Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 10 of 13 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- Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 11 of 13 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. Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 12 of 13 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. Order 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. Printed from counselvise.com Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 - A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 Page 13 of 13 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 Printed from counselvise.com "