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

ITA 535/IND/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Kumar Rathore, the appellant, who was assessed for a substantial unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 3,45,00,000 in his bank account during the assessment year 2018-19. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued an assessment order under sections 147 and 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the deposits as unexplained investments under section 69, leading to a tax demand. The appellant's first appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay in filing, attributed to the use of an outdated email address of his former counsel and lack of education. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's reasons for delay and remanded the case for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837487 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH PORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSHIT CHOUKSE; KUNAL AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Recovery proceedings; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 154; 69; 133(6)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 23 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 No.535 /Ind/2025 (AY: 2018-19) Rajesh Kumar Rathore Galla Mandi Sehore (PAN: AAPPR2617B) बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5, Sehore (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Harshit Choukse, CA & Shri Kunal Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 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/250/2025-26/1075676691(1) dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 2 of 23 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. Factual Matrix 2.1 That as and by way of an “ Assessment order” made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act, the total income of the assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 3,45,00,000/-exigible to tax. No Income Tax Return was filed. The aforesaid “Assessment order” bears No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1050441754(1) dated 06.03.2023 which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”. 2.2 That in the “Impugned Assessment Order” following is recorded “As per the information flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by CBDT and evidence in possession of the department, the assessee Shri. RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE [PAN:AAPPR2617B] had made cash Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 3 of 23 deposits amounting to Rs.3,45,00,000/- in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 in ICICI Bank. However, the assessee has not filed return of income for the relevant assessment year disclosing the above transactions. In order to verify the taxability or otherwise of the transactions stated above, adequate opportunity was afforded to the assessee by the concerned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by issue of notice under section 148A(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for representing the case. However, in response the assessee did not furnish any reply. In view of the noncompliance to the notice issued on the part of the assessee, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, relying on the information available with the Department, passed Order under section 148A(d) of the Income tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2022 under the belief that income escaped assessment to the extent of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- together with notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2022. 2. The case was subsequently assigned to ReFAC Assessment Unit for completion of assessment. Accordingly, Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 4 of 23 in order to enable the assessee to make appropriate submissions, the assessee was afforded opportunity by issue of notices under section 142(1) on 22/08/2022, 21/09/2022, and 11/10/2022. A reminder letter was also issued to the assessee on 25/10/2022. However, in response, the assessee neither filed a valid return of income for the assessment year under consideration nor chose to furnish any information relevant for completion of the assessment. 3. Since the assessee did not comply with the requirements of notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 as stated above, there is no other alternative but to complete the assessment based on the information in possession of the Department. It has to be presumed that since in spite of sufficient opportunity provided, the assessee chose to abstain from furnishing any information, the assessee has no satisfactory explanation to be offered in connection with the cash deposits transactions narrated hereinabove. Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 5 of 23 4. A notice u/s. 133(6) issued to the assessee's bankers to furnish the bank statement for the relevant year. The bank submitted the bank statements for the year under consideration. The same has been verified and tallied with the information. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and after due verification of the information available on record of the Department, cash deposits amounting to Rs.3,45,00,000/- made by the assessee in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 in ICICI Bank is to be treated as income of the assessee as provided under section 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 6. Section 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961 prescribes that \"where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments of the explanation offered by him is not, Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 6 of 23 in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investment may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. 7. In view of the above, since the the assessee has not offered any explanation about the nature and source of the cash deposits stated above, the amount aggregating Rs. 3,45,00,000/- is to be disallowed under section 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as \"unexplained investments\", to be taxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961.” 2.3 That it is also recorded in the “Impugned Assessment Order” that following opportunities were given to the assessee which is tabulated & is reproduced herein : “ 1. Details of opportunities given Type of notice Communication Date of Notice communication Date of compliance given Response of the assessee received/ not received Date of respon se if receive d Respon se type (full/pa rt/adjo urnmen t) Remarks if any 142(1) 22.08.2022 02.09.2022 Not received -- -- Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 7 of 23 142(1) 21.09.2022 05.10.2022 Not received -- -- 142(1) 11.10.2022 18.10.2022 Not received -- -- Letter 25.10.2022 - Not received -- -- Show cause notice 14.02.2023 21.02.2023 Not received -- -- 2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “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 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 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was made on 06.03.2023 which got served upon the appellant on 06.03.2023 but the appeal was filed on 21.11.2024 with a delay of 596 days [626 days (from 06.03.2023 to 21.11.2024) - 30 days] ie. 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 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant has sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order dated Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 8 of 23 06.03.2023, which was admittedly appealable up to 06.04.2023. 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 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 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, Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 9 of 23 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 prescribed time as provided in the section 249(2) of the IT Act, the same is not admitted. 4. In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated on merits. 5. In result, the appeal is disposed off.” 2.5 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 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) is against the Law of Natural Justice as assessee was not given proper opportunity to represent his case. The order passed is required to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO of sustaining the proceedings-initiated u/s 147 of the Act. The order passed in bad in law, void ab initio and without jurisdiction and may therefore may kindly be quashed. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making the addition of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- by treating the cash deposit made by the appellant in bank account as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add any new ground of appeal OR alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. “ Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 10 of 23 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 02.02.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the Assessee appeared before this Tribunal & inter alia contended that the “Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It is passed in the violation of the principles of natural justice. It therefore deserves to be set aside. It was contended that the assessee is an individual. He is doing trading of grains. He also does trading of “Soyabean”. The assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- in his bank account which is current bank A/c of the assessee. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee has been non-compliant. The assessee is not regular filer of Income Tax Returns. The email on the portal was of [e-mail]. Shri Shyam Sundar Mantri was erstwhile counsel of the assessee. Some disputes happened between him and the assessee. However, on the portal, the aforesaid email remained the same. It was then submitted that notice(s) u/s 148A dated 19/03/2022, order passed u/s 148A dated 31/03/2022, notice u/s 148 dated 31/03/2022, Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 11 of 23 Intimation letter u/s 144B dated 17/08/2022, notice u/s 142(1) dated 22/08/2022, notice u/s 142(1) dated 21/09/2022, 11/10/2022 & notice dated 25/10/2022, 25/01/2023 & show cause notice u/s 144 dated 14/02/2023 were all served by the Income Tax Deptt. at e-mail ID which was [e-mail] which was the e-mail id of the erstwhile counsel of the asseessee. In brief it was contended that no notice(s) supra were served on the assessee & due to dispute with the erstwhile counsel Shri Shyam Sundar Mantri no information /knowledge could be assigned to the assessee herein. It was thus submitted that the “Impugned Assessment Order” was passed in an ex-parte manner. 3.2 With regard to the “Impugned Order” of the Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the sole reason for dismissal of first appeal of the assessee was on account of delay & assessee’s explanation on delay was not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). A letter dated 12/03/2025 was filed before NFAC Delhi & Ack. No. - 900556681120325 was tendered across Bar. An intimation letter/order u/s 154 r.w.s. 147 dated 24.09.2024 was too placed Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 12 of 23 on record across bar where interest was requantified at Rs. 3,06,58,880/-. A compilation of all the notices, orders(supra) during the course of Assessment Proceedings which were served at [e-mail] was too placed on record. It was submitted that total delay before the Ld. CIT(A) was of 596 days i.e. beyond prescribed time of 30 days. In form No. 35 the following was averred with regard to delay in column No. 15 which is reproduced by us as below- “ 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 assessment order in the appellants case for A.Y. 2018-19 was passed on 06.03.2023. The above referred order was appealable within 30 days from 06.03.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, appeal should have been filed on or before 04.04.2023. Appellant under genuine belief, however, could not do so for the following reasons: Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 13 of 23 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. During the course of reassess-ment proceedings, E-mail address registered on assessees E-filling portal was [e-mail]. 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. Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 14 of 23 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 Honble CIT (A). That, the ap-pellant assures Your 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 Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 15 of 23 may very kindly be condoned so that justice may be done. I would request Your Honor to kindly condone the delay and enter-tain the appeal on merit.” The copy of the Affidavit dated 09.11.2024 tendered before the Ld. CIT(A) was too tendered before us which is reproduced by us as below- Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 16 of 23 Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 17 of 23 Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 18 of 23 Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 19 of 23 Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 20 of 23 3.3 In brief basis above the Ld. AR contended that the delay was not deliberate. It was unintentional. It was bonafide. The assessee has a substantive right of at least the first-appeal. Hence, it was prayed that the “Impugned Order” be set aside & the matter may be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO. 3.4 Per contra, the Ld. DR has left the issue to this Tribunal & has not opposed contentions of the Ld. AR on the delay aspect before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR stated that the revenue has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. AO on denovo basis . Hearing was then concluded. 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. 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 rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 21 of 23 canvassed before us, are of the considered view that the “Impugned Assessment Order” is u/s 144/144B of the Act & the matter has not been adjudicated and adjudged basis merits. Even the “Impugned Order” is not on merits. This Tribunal desires that the total income of the assessee should be computed and assessed on the real time basis exigible to tax. Notices (supra) have not been served to the assesssee but to his erstwhile counsel with whom the relationship got soured. This Tribunal desires the meritorious disposal of both the “Impugned Assessment Order” as well as the “Impugned Order”. With regards to delay before the Ld. CIT(A), we hold that sufficient reasons were given before Ld. CIT(A) & Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the same judiciously keeping in mind that the delay was explained with plausible & sufficient justification with an affidavit in support. We additionally observe & 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 Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 22 of 23 reassessment u/s 147 of the Act & that the reassessment proceedings are now conducted in faceless manner. E-mail address was of [e-mail] which did not belong to the assessee. It is stated on the “Affidavit” that compliance could 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 as the total income is required to be computed and assessed basis merits too. The assessee’s say is of importance in computing total assessable income exigible to tax. Under these facts & circumstances, we set aside the “Impugned Order” & remand the case back to the file of Ld. AO on de novo basis. We direct the assessee to furnish reply, submissions on merits of the case & to provide all the material details as sought by the Ld. AO Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar Rathore ITA No. 535/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 Page 23 of 23 in time. We direct the assessee not to seek any adjournment on any flimsy grounds. 4.4 In view of the premises drawn by us, 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 on merits. 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 with directions as aforsaid. 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 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 "