RAM NIWAS MEEL,SIKAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIKAR, SIKAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1550/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-18)

Ram Niwas Meel Vs. ITO Kalani & Co LLP, Ward 1 Chartered Accountants, 5th Sikar Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:ACLPM 1790 N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, CA Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 15.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.07.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A)-08, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 30.05.2024 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1550/JPR/2025 Ram Niwas Meel 3. The registry has noted the appeal to be delayed by 97 days, however, ld. Counsel for the assessee has fairly stated before me, that the delay is of 457 days. An application seeking condonation of the delay was filed before me. The contents of which were stated on a duly sworn affidavit filed by the assessee as under:- With reference to above it is to submit that the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt.30.05.2024has upheld the order passed by AO assessing the total income at Rs.14,04,920/-. The appeal was to be filed on or before29.07.2024. However, for the reasons stated hereunder, the appeal could not be filed in time:-

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1550/JPR/2025 Ram Niwas Meel Hence the delay in filing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT is due to a reasonable cause and therefore, the same be condoned and appeal be admitted for hearing for imparting substantial justice. 4. Referring to the above application, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the delay was not on account of any laxity on the part of the assessee. That it occurred for the reason that the notices for hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A) were not issued at the address mentioned in form No.35 of the appeal filed to the Ld. CIT(A) but at some other address. He pointed out from the copy of the Form No.35 filed before me, that the address to which notices were to be sent to the appellant was specified in point No.17 as 5th Floor Kalani and Company Gandhi Nagar Mode Jaipur and the assessee had categorically mentioned the notices to be not sent on the email address in his Form No.35. 5. That, however, all the notices were sent at the email id ravindra.adv9@rediffmail.com and therefore, did not come either to the notice of the assessee or his Consultant and as a consequence, of which neither the first appellate proceedings could be attended by the assessee, nor was the assessee aware of the passing of the order of Ld. CIT(A) on 30.05.2024. That it was subsequently, when the assessee received a telephonic call from the Income Tax Department about the payment of outstanding dues on 15.09.2025, that he became aware of the passing of Ld. CIT(A) order and immediately approached his counsel to file appeal, which was filed thereafter, on 5th of November 2025, with a delay of 457 days. 6. He pleaded that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal and to meet the ends of justice, the delay needed to

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1550/JPR/2025 Ram Niwas Meel be condoned, since the assessee had remained unheard before the Ld. CIT(A) also. 7. Ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay. 8. Having heard both the parties, I am of the view that, assessee has adduced sufficient cause for the delay, the assessee has fairly demonstrated before me, that due to the non-service of notice of hearing, not being done at the stated address in Form No.35 filed by the assessee, the assessee was unaware of passing of Ld. CIT(A) order. The facts relating to the same emanate from the record itself. 9. In view of the same, it is abundantly clear that the delay occurred on account of assessee being totally unaware of the passing of Ld. CIT(A) order, for no fault of his, since the communication of the same was not made at the address specified by him in the Form No.35. Even otherwise, I have noted that the Ld. CIT(A) order has passed an ex parte order, therefore, not condoning the delay would result in the additions made by the AO being confirmed without the assessee being heard. In the interest of justice, therefore, and noting the assessee to have adduced sufficient cause for the delay, I condone the delay of 457 days in filing of the appeal before me. 10. Taking up the appeal for hearing. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution without serving the hearing notices at the communication address given in Form No.35 but sending the notices at e-mail id ravindra.adv9@rediffmail.com which is not the e-mail of assessee and therefore the order of CIT(A) did not came to the notice of assessee.

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1550/JPR/2025 Ram Niwas Meel 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.8,40,500/- u/s 68 of the Act by treating the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2016 as unexplained cash credit and addition of Rs.67,000/- u/s 69A of the Act by treating the cash deposit during demonetization period as unexplained.

P a g e | 6 ITA No.1550/JPR/2025 Ram Niwas Meel withdrawals made by the assessee from its KCC accounts and agricultural receipts and retirement benefits received by the assessee. On perusal of bank accounts of the assessee, it was note that assessee and his wife had withdrawn total of Rs. 6,70,000/- from their KCC accounts in the month of December 2015 and March 2016. The assessee has not shown any agricultural income during period under consideration. The assessee retired in 2010 and pension benefits are received in bank account. No significant cash withdrawals being noticed in that account. Therefore, source of Rs. 8,40,500/- (15,10,500-6,70,000) stands unexplained. Thus, Rs. 8,40,500/- are added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits in books of accounts of the assessee. Tax rate u/s 115BBE of the Act is applicable in this case. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act are separately initiated in this case.

P a g e | 7 ITA No.1550/JPR/2025 Ram Niwas Meel 13. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that, the assessee was a retired ex-serviceman and had received pension benefits on his retirement. That the amount of Rs.8,40,500/- was too meager to be not attributed to his savings from his earnings as a serviceman in earlier year. 14. The Ld. DR however, opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 15. I have considered the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and find merit in the same. The assessee undoubtedly, is a retired pensioner, who has retired after long year of service; cash in hand available with him need not be attributable solely to cash withdrawals made from Bank. The possibility of cash in hand, resulting from his savings cannot be ruled out, and noting the amount of cash balance attributed to his cash savings, to be too meager, considering the long years of service put in by the assessee, I see no justification in addition of the amount of Rs.8,40,500/- cash treated as opening cash in hand to be treated as from unexplained sources. In the facts and circumstances of the case as demonstrated before me, it can be safely assumed to have been accumulated from his past savings and the rejection of the explanation of the assessee merely for the reason that, there were no withdrawals made to substantiate the cash in hand is rejected as untenable. The addition made to the income of the assessee, therefore, on account of the opening cash in hand remained explained of Rs.8,40,500/- is accordingly deleted.

P a g e | 8 ITA No.1550/JPR/2025 Ram Niwas Meel 16. Taking up the issue of addition made of Rs.67,000/- to the income of the assessee, para 7 of the assessment order reveals that itwas made for solely for the reason that the assessee had deposited Rs.67,000/- in bank in specified bank notes,(SBN), of Rs.1,000/- on 13.12.2016, after the expiry of the period, allowing the said thousand rupee bank note to be deposited in the Bank as per notification issued by the Government during the demonetization exercise carried out in 2016. Therefore, merely because, the assessee deposited the SBN in the Bank after the period permitted by law, the AO held that, it was unaccounted cash of the assessee. 17. I see no correlation between the finding of fact by the AO and his conclusion and inference from the same. The fact that the assessee deposited SBN after the period permitted by law, does not make the amounts so deposited as unexplained money. Unexplained money in terms of Section 69A of the Act means money the source of which is not explained. The deposit of SBN notes in Bank beyond the period permitted by law by no stretch of logic can led to inference that the source of the money was not explained. The assessee may have accumulated these bank note in his business of operating the petrol pump, which he admittedly operated during the impugned year, and income from which he returned to tax, but for the reasons beyond his control, he was unable to deposit the SBNs within the period specified by law. Therefore, unless and until, there is a finding by the AO recording the source of this deposit in the Bank account of Rs.67,000/- remaining unexplained, the amount deposited beyond the period

P a g e | 9 ITA No.1550/JPR/2025 Ram Niwas Meel prescribed by law in SBN’s cannot be treated as unexplained money of the assessee, I hold. Since this is the only reason for which the AO has treated the amount of Rs.67,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, I hold, the said finding of the AO to be not sustainable and accordingly direct deletion of the addition of Rs.67,000/- made to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 18. In effect, the appeal of the assessee therefore, allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21.07.2026

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 21.07.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur