SITARAM SOMA DHANU,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-23(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3139/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2026AY 2017-186 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. Considering the assessee's death and the circumstances, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the legal heirs.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay. The assessee, a super senior citizen, had passed away, and his grandson, who was handling his affairs, faced arrest and mental distress, leading to the delay. The original assessment was a best judgment assessment where cash deposits and credit entries were added to income.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to the personal circumstances of the assessee and his legal heir. Whether the matter should be remanded for a fresh assessment considering the assessee's death and lack of opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

Pronounced: 24/07/2026

PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 20.07.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act.

2.

In spite of issuance of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any adjournment was sought. The appeal is disposed of based on the grounds of appeal and the material available on record and on hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,03,88,760/-u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ii) The appellant having depended on his grandson for looking after the income tax matter which he was unable to do due to his arrest and other legal complications. iii) The delay in filing may be condoned. Further, the appellant has expired and non-opportunity will cause the legal heirs unnecessary hardship.”

4.

This appeal was filed with a delay of 902 days and the legal heir of the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay as under:

“The appellant was a super senior citizen and expired on 23/07/2024 at the age of 96. His affairs were handled by me his grandson and am at present his legal heir. Unfortunately, some associates of mine had alleged that I had committed a financial irregulatory/offence and based on their complaint I was arrested. I was under detention and was released on bail after a year time. In view of the above, 1 was mentally disturbed and did not attend to any business and other activities. I have now been absolved in some a majority of the matters. I have now recovered and while going through my grandfathers documents become aware that one of the appeal matter had been dismissed. Immediately, I approached a consultant and am filing an appeal before Your Honour. The delay is under conditions beyond my control due to my arrest and mental state of mind. The delay in filing may be condoned. If the same is denied it will cause immense distress to the family and will also deny the family of an opportunity to defend itself and will be against natural justice.”

5.

An affidavit was also filed affirming the averments made in the petition as under:

“1. That 1 am the Legal heir of Sitaram Dhanu 2. That the order was passed in on an around 20/07/2023 3. That the appellant was a super senior citizen and expired on 23/07/2024 at the age of 96 4. That the affairs of the appellant were handled by me his grandson 5. That based on an allegation by my associates of me having committed a financial irregularity / offence I was arrested. Later I was released by bail after a year's time. 6. That I was mentally disturbed and was unwell due to stress. 7. That I have been absolved in many of the cases of alleged immediately. 8. That after recovery I became aware that an appellate order of my grandfather of having been dismissed 9. That I could not give any information considering the circumstances and hence the dismissal without submission of information and hence the matter was not on merits. 10. That I have immediately taken steps to file an appeal before the appellate authority and which is delayed 11. That the delay in filing to the appeal may be condoned under the given circumstances 12. That if the delay is not condoned it will deny me an opportunity to defend against the impugned order and will be against principles of natural justice. 13. That if the delay is not condoned my family and I will be put to untold hardships financially and otherwise.” 6. On going through the reasons explained by the assessee for the delay, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal within time. Hence, the delay of 902 days is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

7.

On perusal of the record, it is observed that the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act by the Assessing Officer as a best judgment assessment. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the cash deposits made by the assessee into his bank account during the demonetization period amounting to ₹1,03,00,000/-. Apart from that the Assessing Officer also brought to tax ₹2.90 crores, representing the credit entries appearing in the bank statement from 01.04.2016 to 31.12.2016, since there was no response from the assessee.

8.

Taking the facts into consideration that the assessee was a super senior citizen and had passed away at the age of 96 years, we are of the view that the assessee was unable to represent his case by filing the necessary details during the course of the best judgment assessment. We also observe that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. Therefore, taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issues in appeal afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the legal heirs of the assessee.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2026

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 24/07/2026 Prabhat Copy to: SITARAM SOMA DHANU, 122 B SAI ASURAM, PRIVATE SAI ROAD 1 PALI HILL BANDRA WEST, MUMBAI-400050, MAHARASHTRA

ITO, WARD-23(3)(3), 2 PIRAMAL CHAMBER,MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA

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 →