Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee deposited a significant amount of cash in savings accounts during demonetization and failed to file a Return of Income. The AO completed a best judgment assessment, adding cash deposits as unexplained and making an addition for alleged business income.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's status as a small businessman not conversant with digital proceedings. The assessee is granted one more opportunity to explain the cash deposits and other additions.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to explain cash deposits and other additions.
Sections Cited
142(1), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “H(SMC
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
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
2 Mohd. Akram Abdul Latif Ansari 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.