MOHD AKRAM ABDUL LATIF ANSARI,BHIWANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KALYAN
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “H(SMC
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) Mohd. Akram Abdul Latif Ansari Gala No. 02, MH No. 71, More Building, Kotergate Road Kap Kaneri, Bhiwandi Thane, Maharashtra-421 302. Vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Mohan Plaza, Near Poddar School Wayale Nagar, Khadagpada, Kalyan PAN : ADNPA2221M
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-
The appellant has deposited cash of more than Rs. 32.60 lakh in his five savings bank accounts during demonetization period. The appellant has not filed Return of Income despite notice under section 142(1) of the Income
Tax Act was issued. Since there was no response from the appellant, the AO proceeded with assessment and completed the same as best Judgment assessment through e-proceedings. Since the appellant has not filed any Return of Income, the AO presumed that there is no explanation to offer and part of the money deposited in the savings bank account (Rs. 32.6 lakh) as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Apart from this, the Ld.
AO made addition of Rs. 15.7 lakh as profit under the head ‘business income’ being 8% of gross receipts of news paper business. Thus, the AO completed the assessment by assessing income of Rs. 48.3 lakh and raised corresponding income tax demand.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A). From the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that six opportunities were given to the appellant to explain sources of cash deposits into the bank
Mohd. Akram Abdul Latif Ansari
2
account. As there was no response from the appellant, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO.
The appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT with delay of 384 days. The Ld. AR has submitted before the Bench that the appellant is a very small businessman and he is in the business of selling news papers and also a small bakery shop. He is not well conversant with e-proceedings, digital system, internet etc. The appellant also claimed that he was not informed by his tax consultant that such order was passed against him. Since the delay was not intentional or deliberate, the Ld. AR of the appellant sought mercy and requested to condone the delay and give one more opportunity to explain the sources of cash deposited into bank account and other additions.
Ld. DR opposed giving one more opportunity to the appellant and also plea of condonation of delay by Ld. AR of the appellant.
Heard both sides. After hearing Ld. AR of the appellant and also after perusing the written submission including affidavit filed by the appellant, the Bench is of the opinion that the delay can be condoned as the appellant is small businessman and not much conversant with the faceless system of assessment. Hence, the delay is condoned by levying a cot of Rs. 10,000/- which should be paid to “Maharashtra State Legal Aid Fund” and the Bench decided to give one more opportunity to the appellant to explain all sources of cash deposited into his bank account and other additions made by the AO. The appellant is directed to produce all details before AO and proof of payment of Rs. 10,000/-.
The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/12/2025. (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mohd. Akram Abdul Latif Ansari
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.