SANJAY MUKATI,INDORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), MAIN BUILDING INDORE

ITA 510/IND/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Mukati, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the additions made by the AO under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The CIT(A) had rejected additional evidence provided by the appellant due to the absence of a petition justifying the admission of such evidence under Rule 46A(1). The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not adequately address the merits of the case and failed to provide a reasoned decision as mandated by the Act. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to consider the additional evidence and provide a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822800 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORASSESSEESUBMITTEDTHATTHE; FORREVENUEDOESNOTHAVEANYOBJECTIONIFTHEBENCHCONDONESDELAYAND; SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIRISHIKESHMISHRA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 7 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.510/Ind/2025 Assessment Year:2012-13 Sanjay Mukati, 225, Tanki Chowk, Bijalpur, Indore बनाम/ Vs. ITO 2(1) Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: BCEPM6423N Assessee by Shri Rishikesh Mishra, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 13.02.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 27.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-2(4), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). Printed from counselvise.com Sanjay Mukati ITA No. 510/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 Page 2 of 7 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 31 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit; the affidavit filed by assessee is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference: Printed from counselvise.com Sanjay Mukati ITA No. 510/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 Page 3 of 7 Printed from counselvise.com Sanjay Mukati ITA No. 510/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 Page 4 of 7 3. 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. 4. On merit of case, it emerged during hearing that the CIT(A) has passed following order: “8.2 The assessee has filed additional evidence during the course of appellate proceedings which does not explain the case of the assessee. However, no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence justifying and explaining as to under which Clause of Rule 46A(1), the assessee's case is covered and as to why the additional evidence should be admitted. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the additional evidence filed by the assessee is Printed from counselvise.com Sanjay Mukati ITA No. 510/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 Page 5 of 7 not admissible. Accordingly, the same is not admitted. Moreover, the additional evidence filed is incomplete and does not in way buttress the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned and speaking order of the AO. Therefore the additions of made by the AOof Rs.93,26,574/- u/s.69 of the Act and broughtto tax as the income of assessee is confirmed. Hence, the grounds of appeal are Dismissed.” 5. Thus, it is a case where the assessee was not able to file all evidences to AO and therefore filed additional evidences to CIT(A) but the CIT(A) rejected assessee’s evidences in absence of a petition by assessee for admission of those evidences. At the same time, the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions but the CIT(A) has not passed a meritorious order as per mandate of section 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. Therefore, the impugned order of CIT(A) deserves to be set aside. It further emerged that the additional evidences sought to be filed by assessee would ultimately require a proper verification by AO. In that view of matter, it would be better to restore this matter at the level of AO for adjudication afresh. Both sides agreed to this proposition. Ld. DR, however, made a request to give specific direction to assessee for co-operation and representation before AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 6. In view of above facts and considering the submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind Printed from counselvise.com Sanjay Mukati ITA No. 510/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 Page 6 of 7 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, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. 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. 7. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced by putting up on notice board in terms of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 23/12/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 23/12/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative Printed from counselvise.com Sanjay Mukati ITA No. 510/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 Page 7 of 7 (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Printed from counselvise.com "