RUBINA ASHU SHAIKH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 31(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9232/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026AY 2013-145 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to provide any documents or explanations to substantiate the grounds raised. The orders of the revenue authorities were upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a delay, which was condoned. The assessee remained ex-parte before the lower authorities and did not provide any substantiating explanations. The ITAT proceeded ex-parte as the assessee did not appear.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained cash credit and unexplained investment are valid without substantiation by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Respondent: Shri. Umashankar Prasad (CIT DR) &, Shri. Annavaram Kosuri, SR.AR
Hearing: 18.05.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT(A), Udaipur, for the assessment year 2013-14. The following grounds are reproduced below:

2 “Ground No. 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Id Assessing Officer has erred in assessing the Total income at Rs. 54, 64,325 instead of Rs. 5, 20,065. Your Honor, kindly accept the total income declared by the Assessee.

Ground No. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ld Assessing officer has erred in treating cash deposits of Rs.515000/- in bank account as unexplained cash credit U/s.69A. Your Honor, the said addition please may be deleted.

Ground No. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Id Assessing officer has erred in treating amount of Rs.38,63,960 as unexplained investment U/S.

69.

Your Honor, the said addition please may be deleted.

Ground No. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ld Assessing officer has erred in assessing Rs.63000/- under the head Income from House Property. Your Honor, the said addition please may be deleted.

Ground No. 5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ld Assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.502300/- being ad hoc 25% of the amount of various expenses debited to Profit & Loss Account. Your Honor, the said addition please may be deleted.

Ground No. 6 All the Grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to each other

Ground No. 7 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, and amend the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

3

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, when the case was called repeatedly. Whereas, on the other hand, the Ld. DR present in the court and is ready with the arguments. Therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case as ex-parte.

3.

From the records, we notice that there is delay of 29 days in filling the appeal and in this regard, an application along with the affidavit has already been filed on behalf of the assessee, for seeking condonation of delay. After having gone through the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay and also, the affidavit filed by the assessee and after hearing the Ld. DR, we found that the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the delay in filling the present appeal was not on account of her willful default. Therefore, considering the said application and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC), dated 19.02.1987, we condone the delay in filling the present appeal and consequently admit the appeal to be heard on merits.

4.

On going through the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A), we found that the assessee was ex-parte before Ld.CIT(A) and had also not offered any explanation before the Assessing Officer as well, in order to substantiate the 4 grounds raised by the assessee. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

5.

Since, no documents or explanation has been put forth before us in order to substantiate the grounds raised by the assessee and after considering the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, we find no reasons to interfere in the same and thus, dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands to be dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026 (BIJAYNANDA PRUSETH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated 20/05/2026 Aditi Pandare, PS आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

1.

""थ" / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. 5 िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु"बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स"ािपत "ित ////

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →