SUDHA DEVI JAYPRAKASH VARMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC-MUM-C

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2621/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s confirmation of an addition of ₹30,42,500 as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee argued that the addition was based on portal information without independent verification and that documentary evidence showing a lower deposit amount was ignored.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions based on portal information without independent verification and in rejecting additional evidence. The key issue is the proper consideration of evidence regarding cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- NFAC vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082281169(1) dated 04-Nov-2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹30,42,500 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, treating alleged cash deposits as unexplained income.

2.

The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer made the addition merely on the basis of information available on the Insight Portal without conducting any independent verification or examination of the bank accounts of the appellant.

3.

The learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the documentary evidences including bank statements and explanations submitted by the appellant which clearly demonstrate that the actual cash deposited during the year was only 16,14,000 and not 30,42,500 as alleged by the Assessing Officer.

4.

The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidences on technical grounds under Rule 46A without appreciating that the appellant is a small individual taxpayer and was prevented by reasonable cause from submitting such evidences during assessment proceedings.

5.

The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the addition of 37,029 as income from other sources without appreciating that the interest income had already been duly disclosed in the return of income filed by the appellant in response to notice under section 148.

6.

The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant had filed the return of income disclosing total income of 2,95,295 and the same was not properly examined before making the impugned additions.

7.

The order passed by the learned CIT(A) confirming the additions is arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore liable to be set aside.

8.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.

2.

At the very outset, I noticed that there is a delay of approximately 33 days in filing the present appeal. Considering the entire factual position as explained before me and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [1987 AIR 1353 (SC)], wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities of a non-deliberate delay, substantial justice is to be preferred, I am of the view that the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee, who has justifiably and satisfactorily explained the delay that occurred in filing the appeal, and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

3.

At the very outset, I also noticed that the assessee had filed an application before the learned CIT(A) seeking admission of additional evidence the same is reproduced herein below:

3.1. However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the said application, observing the non-compliant conduct of the assessee.

4.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, I allow the application seeking admission of the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A).

5.

Since I have allowed the application for admission of the additional evidence, I restore the matter to the file of the AO for considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee, as well as for factual verification thereof.

6.

Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the matter afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, subject to the cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed upon the assessee. The said amount shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund, and a copy of the receipt evidencing such deposit shall be placed on record before the AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the remand proceedings.

7.

Before parting, I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute. The AO shall adjudicate the issues independently and strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2026.

Sd/- SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 31.07.2026 RY-SrPS

Copy to: SUDHA DEVI JAYPRAKASH VARMA, ROOM NO 7, KEWAL X LANE, 1ST FLOOR, 1 RIDHI SIDDHI HOUSE, 178A A B, MUMBAI-400002, MAHARASHTRA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT 2 CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI-100001, DELHI

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →