JAYSHREE DEVI RAMJI GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6048/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 October 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable and sufficient cause. It held that the impugned issues, including the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments and the non-granting of TDS/TCS credit collected in the husband's name, required a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the matters were restored to the AO to decide afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a widowed senior citizen, inherited a liquor business from her late husband. She made cash payments to creditors totaling Rs. 45,81,894/- due to an inability to operate her bank account, which was disallowed under Section 40A(3). The appeals were filed significantly late and were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) after intimation under Section 143(1), as the assessee could not attend the proceedings. Additionally, credit for TDS/TCS collected in the deceased husband's name was not granted.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the condonation of delay in filing appeals, the disallowance of cash payments under Section 40A(3), and the non-granting of TDS/TCS credit to the assessee after inheriting her husband's business, where the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, A/R
Hearing: 13/10/2025Pronounced: 15/10/2025

Assessee by : Shri Shashank Mehta, A/R Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: & 6047/Mum/2025, are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)/Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Jaipur [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] dated 20/05/2024 & 09/01/2024 respectively, pertaining to AY 2018-19 and 2019-20.

2.

Since common grievance is involved in both the appeals, they were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3.

Appeal for AY 2018-19 is late by 437 days and that of AY 2019-20 is late by 586 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating the facts in filing the appeal after the period of limitation.

4.

We have carefully perused the contents of the affidavit and given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the causing the delay in filing the appeal. Though, the ld. D/R has strongly objected for the I.T.A. Nos. 6048 & 6047/Mum/2025 2 condonation of delay but we are convinced that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time. The delay is, therefore condoned.

5.

Having heard the representatives, we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) after receiving intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. The appellate proceedings could not be attended and the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order.

6.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a widowed senior citizen earning income from business inherited from her late husband and also earns rental income from other sources. The husband of the assessee was carrying on the business of selling liquor under the trade name of Olympic Wines but expired on 06/08/2017 i.e., during FY 2017-18. The assessee inherited the business of her deceased husband and filed her return of income on 31/08/2018 when it was brought to her notice that income up to the date of death also has to be included in her return of income i.e., business income which is subjected to tax audit. Thereafter, the assessee declared total income of Rs. 38,04,700/- in her revised return of income which was filed along with the tax audit report. 6.1. Because of some legal formalities, the assessee could not operate the bank account but in the intervening period, the creditors were paid in cash amounting to Rs. 45,81,894/-. Since the auditor has mentioned the cash payment in the audit report while processing the return of income, the same was disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 6.2. As mentioned elsewhere, the appellate proceedings could not be attended and the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and the assessee I.T.A. Nos. 6048 & 6047/Mum/2025 3

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →