DNYANDEO JADHAV,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(1), VASHI INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2983/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 20265 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay, which was condoned. The assessee had remained ex parte before the Assessing Officer (AO) and could not provide documentary evidence for cash deposits. The lower authorities sustained the addition under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated without proper application of mind and the addition made under Section 69A for cash deposits, along with the initiation of penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 271AAC(1)

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. National Faceless Appeal Centre vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1083751623(1) dated 16-Dec-2025 for the Assessment Year 2017 - 18. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

INVALID SANCTION UNDER SECTION 151

1.

The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in initiating reassessment proceedings vide notice issued on 21/07/2022 after obtaining approval under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings invalid and liable to be quashed.

INVALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147

2.

The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and passing the assessment order dated 22/05/2023, which is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69A

3.

The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making addition of 17,08,500 under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of cash deposits during the alleged period.

INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271AAC(1)

4.

The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 consequent to the addition made under section 69A.

2.

At the very outset, I noticed that there is a delay of approximately 17 days in filing the present appeal. Considering the entire factual position 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. Accordingly, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee, who has satisfactorily explained the delay that occurred in filing the present appeal, and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

3.

From the records, I noticed that the assessee remained ex parte before the AO and could not file any documentary evidence before the learned CIT(A) either to substantiate the genuineness, nature, and source of the cash deposited in his bank account during the period of demonetisation. Therefore, both the Revenue authorities sustained the addition made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act.

4.

Now, before me, the learned AR submitted that there was reasonable cause on account of which the assessee could not furnish the necessary documentary evidence before the Revenue authorities.

5.

Accordingly, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to set aside the orders passed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing the assessee with an adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard. This restoration shall, however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- by the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. 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.

6.

The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation during the remand proceedings and shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds.

7.

Before parting, it is made clear that the decision to restore the matter to the file of the AO shall not be construed as expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the controversy involved. The AO shall adjudicate the issues independently, uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order, and strictly in accordance with law.

8.

Needless to mention, the AO shall provide the assessee with an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard before passing the fresh order.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is 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: DNYANDEO JADHAV , FLAT NO. 401 TWINKLE RESIDENCY, PLOT NO. 152, SECTOR - 21, TALAVALI 1 NAKA, GHANSOLI, NAVI MUMBAI-400701, MAHARASHTRA ITO WARD 28(1)(1), VASHI RAILWAY STATION BUILDING, 2 3RD FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL INFOTECH PARK, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI., NAVI MUMBAI-400703, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →