JAYASHREE DEVI RAMJI GUPTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX. OFFICER WARD 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the instant case, it appears from the assessment order that the Assessee had declared her total income at Rs. 3,28,520/- by filing a return of income on 31.03.2017, which was initially processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, however, subsequently selected for scrutiny through CASS and therefore, statutory notices were issued to the Assessee, in response to which the Assessee filed the relevant details. From the details filed by the Assessee, the AO observed that the Assessee had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on dated 10.05.2014 in her bank account and therefore, he show-caused the assessee, however as per the assessment order, no reply was received from the Assessee, therefore, the AO considered the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as undisclosed income and ultimately vide assessment order dated 18.12.2017 under section 144 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Act made the addition of Rs.1,00,000/-

The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Id. Commissioner however, with the delay of 82 days in filing the first appeal, who vide impugned order dismissed the same in limine and/or for want of limitation.

We observe from the impugned order that the ld. Commissioner has taken into consideration the fact that the Assessee has failed to file an application for condonation of delay under Section 249(3) of the Act, whereas it is a fact that in column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the Assessee has specifically replied the answer to the question, “whether there is a delay in filing of appeal?", "yes" and in column no. 15 has clearly mentioned that grounds of condonation of delay to be submitted at the time of hearing. It appears from the submissions dated 13.03.2023, that though the Assessee has not made a particular submission and/or application and/or any affidavit however, it is a fact that in para no.5 of its submission, the Assessee has clearly explained the delay that her husband was expired on 06.08.2017 and after his death, the Assessee was under mental trauma and was at her native place most of the time and proceedings for the notices under Section 143(2) started on 18.09.2017 and she was not in a state of mind to look after any compliance related to such aspect and the proceedings for the notices which initiated from 18.09.2017. The appellant being the old lady of 62 years of age, accumulated a small amount from her past savings and household work receipts and had submitted all the evidence, whatever she had with her.

In our considered view, the reasons stated by the Assessee appears to be bonafide, unintentional and sufficient cause for delay of 82 days occurred in filing of first appeal before the ld. Commissioner. Even otherwise, there is no material available on record to contradict such claim of the Assessee.

Thus, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 82 days in filing of first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, thus, the same is condoned.

Coming to the merits of the case, as observed above, that the Assessee after the death of her husband, was in trauma and being an old aged lady of 62 years of age accumulated small amount from her past savings and household work receipts therefore, in our considered view, there seems to be a reasonable cause and/or reasons for depositing of Rs.1,00,000/- in her bank account, which is otherwise meager amount, any married non-working female can save throughout her life and therefore, we are inclined to accept the claim of the Assessee, as reasonable source and/or past saving on the basis of which, the Assessee deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in her account.

Thus, on the above, we do not have any hesitation to delete the addition under consideration. Hence, the addition is deleted.

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed.