What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's explanation as bona fide. The Tribunal found that the issue of cash deposits required proper verification of the source of funds, which were claimed to be from the husband's income.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay, which was attributed to limited education and unfamiliarity with online procedures. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 10,58,500/- on account of cash deposits, treating them as unexplained.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and whether the cash deposits were adequately explained by the assessee.

Sneha Jayendra Padwal vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE PRABHASH SHANKAR

Pronounced: 01.09.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for the A.Y. 2017-18.

ITA No.5571/MUM/2026 Sneha Jayendra Padwal 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 248 days in filing the instant appeal. The Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by a duly sworn affidavit, explaining the reasons as under:

“That the impugned ex-parte order dated 30.06.2025 was uploaded electronically, but she could not become aware of the same at the relevant time on account of limited education and lack of familiarity with technical, legal and online procedures. The Assessee became aware of the impugned order only upon receipt of a demand message and initiation of recovery proceedings in her bank account, where after she promptly sought professional advice and filed the present appeal. The Assessee has also stated that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to lack of proper professional guidance, communication gaps with the earlier representative and certain personal and financial constraints. It is further stated that Rs.30,000/- has been paid towards the outstanding demand. On the aforesaid basis, the Assessee has prayed that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits.” 3. The Ld. DR opposed the condonation and supported the orders passed by the authorities below.

We have considered the reasons stated in the application as well as the affidavit. The explanation regarding lack of knowledge of the ex-parte order, limited familiarity with legal and electronic procedures and prompt action after gaining knowledge prima facie constitutes a plausible and bona fide explanation. Thus, considering the settled principle that the expression “sufficient cause” deserves a liberal construction where no deliberate inaction or mala fide is established, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

Coming to the merits, the AO, vide assessment order dated 15.10.2019 passed u/s 144 of the Act, made an addition of Rs.10,58,500/- on account of cash deposits, treating the same as unexplained.

ITA No.5571/MUM/2026 Sneha Jayendra Padwal 6. The Assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. Commissioner. However, in the absence of compliance and supporting material, the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the addition.

Before us, the Assessee explained that the deposits represented amounts arising from fixed-deposit withdrawals and cash balances of her husband, which were deposited in the Assessee’s Bank of Maharashtra account and in the bank accounts of their minor sons. It was further claimed that the relevant transactions had been duly reflected by the Assessee’s husband in his return of income.

The Ld. DR on the contrary supported the orders passed by the authorities below.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, both the assessment and first appellate proceedings were completed without the benefit of the relevant supporting documents. Considering the specific explanation now offered by the Assessee that the deposits originated from funds belonging to her husband and were duly reflected in his accounts/return of income, the issue requires proper verification.

10.

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the file of the AO for decision afresh, suffice to say, by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and considering the material and submissions placed/to be placed on record.

11.

However, considering that the earlier proceedings remained unprosecuted, the aforesaid remand shall be subject to deposit of cost of Rs.11,000/- with the Revenue Department under the head “Other Receipts”, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Proof of deposit shall be furnished before the AO.

ITA No.5571/MUM/2026 Sneha Jayendra Padwal 12. The Assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. We further clarify that, in case of any further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency.

13.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

SNEHA JAYENDRA PADWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments