PUJA SUHAS DESHMUKH,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 755/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 April 2026AY 2013-147 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing a justice-oriented approach and reliance on Supreme Court judgments. It held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on surmises and conjectures, as the revenue failed to provide evidence of the alleged investment from the assessee's bank account.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 438 days. The assessee, a housewife, explained the delay due to lack of technical knowledge and reliance on a friend for communication with the tax department, leading to missed notices. The appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 5,68,000/- for alleged unexplained investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained investment is sustainable without proper evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR ‘SMC’ BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Hearing: 11.03.2026Pronounced: 13.04.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 25.07.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 438 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay. Relevant contents of said affidavit reads as under:

“3. THAT I am a housewife and am not well versed with computers and technology.

4.

THAT, I do not use nor do I need an email id in my life. I do not have any mobile phone of my own.

2 Puja Suhas Deshmukh

5.

THAT, on receiving notices from the Income Tax Department, a profile for me was created by a friend of my husband giving my husband's mobile number and the email id of my husband's friend, Mr. Vijaykant Murthy, nvsmurthyngp60@gmail.com. I have no access to the email id. My husband's friend was helping me with the Income Tax Department proceedings. 46

6.

THAT, FOR THE Assessment Year 2013-2014, my husband's friend helped me file responses during assessment proceedings.

7.

Appeal was filed against the Assessment Order dt. 30.09.2021 on 27.10.2021, i.e. in time, and responses were submitted to First Appeal Proceedings Notice Reference Id 100054232043 dated 15.11.2022 on 18.11.2022 808941861181122 vide Acknowledgement and continued Ackd no. 809182141181122. Nos.

8.

After 15.11.2022, The Hon'ble CIT Appeals issued 5 hearing notices between 14.05.2024 to 04.07.2024, posted on the email id available on the income tax portal, which went unnoticed. No other effort was made to serve notice on the assessee. Appellate Order dt 25.07.2024 was passed for non pursued appeal. Grounds of Appeal were also not accepted.

9.

THAT, Me and my husband having lost all our savings to Wasankar Wealth Management and having no sources of income left, under severe stress, are managing to somehow survive and had no contacts with Mr. Vijaykant Murthy for long time.

10.

THAT, I came to know of the Appellate Order of the Commissioner of Appeals dated 25.07.2024, when on 31.10.2025 MY husband received a SMS on his phone giving Show Cause Notice for penalty under section 271(1)(c).

11.

THAT, I then contacted Mr. Vijaykant Murthy for filing reply and then came to know of the Appellate Order.

12.

THAT, I was advised to file an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and was told that my appeal was very late nearly 14 months. I was also told that I will have to deposit Tribunal Appeal Fee.

13.

THAT, I have no source of income and to pay the fees is also a difficult task for me which I somehow arranged with help of friends and relatives.

14.

THAT, the delay in filing the appeal is due to non-awareness of the Appellate Order, having no access to the email id on the portal. That I have not done anything consciously or deliberately to avoid proceedings or to delay filing of the appeal.

3 Puja Suhas Deshmukh

15.

THAT, my husband is also under stress due to financial constraints and is somehow passing his days.

16.

THAT, I have changed the email id and mobile nos. on the profile with that of friends and I will make sure that I am kept informed of the Income Tax Proceedings in future.

17.

THAT, I most humbly pray that in the interests of natural justice, my appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be admitted and allowed to be presented and accepted for hearing and the delay in filing the Appeal may please be condoned

18.

THAT, the above Affidavit is required for the purpose Income Tax proceedings.

19.

THAT, this my declaration is true and no portion is false and I have concealed nothing material or relevant to the matter named above.”

3.

On due consideration of the averments made by the assessee and also adopting justice oriented approach, I find that the delay is not deliberate and placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 438 days before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned addition for unexplained investment of Rs.5,68,000/- with M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management Ltd. is uncalled for because the assessee as individual made such investment through her bank account. Reference also made to the submissions filed before ld.CIT(A) where it has been stated that the reopening has been carried out as per the information about alleged investment of Rs.36.00 lakh but thereafter ld. Assessing Officer has only dealt with the investment of Rs.7.10

4 Puja Suhas Deshmukh lakh. Further, ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the source of cash payment of Rs.1,42,000/- ( which is 20% of Rs.7.10 lakh) on the basis of cash withdrawals made from the bank account. So far as the remaining amount of Rs.5,68,000/- is concerned, ld. Assessing Officer alleged it to have been paid through cheque, the assessee has stated to have not made any such payment through banking channel and no other evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue authorities and that the impugned addition is merely on surmises and conjectures. He further submitted that assessee’s husband after getting retired from his employment invested his retirement funds and all his past savings in M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management Ltd. and has lost all his investment.

5.

So far as the assessee is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that she is a housewife and does not have regular source of investment and no such investment has been made from her bank account. He submitted that in the details of investment of Rs.7.10 lakh includes various amounts like Rs.2.00 lakh invested on 19.12.2013 which is not at all relevant for the year under consideration, inspite of that impugned addition has been made including this amount. He therefore submitted that impugned addition in the hands of assessee deserves to be deleted.

6.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

7.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I note that ld. Assessing Officer has alleged that assessee has made investment through banking channel

5 Puja Suhas Deshmukh of Rs.5.68 lakh but the said investment has not been explained. I note that the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on the information about the investment of Rs.36.00 lakh by the assessee with M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management Ltd. during A.Y. 2013-14 but subsequently the alleged escaped income has been stated to be Rs.7.10 lakh in the assessment order which itself shows that ld. Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings without making proper and independent verification. Even for the investment of Rs.7.10 lakh, ld. Assessing Officer has observed that 20% of such amount has been made in cash. The assessee furnished complete bank statement wherein cash withdrawals were sufficient to explain the cash deposited eventhough the assessee has never accepted to have made any investment in her individual name with M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management Ltd. and whatever investments made were in the name of the assessee’s husband who invested his retirement funds.

8.

I further observe that Revenue authorities have failed to bring on record any evidence which could indicate that there is a bank account in the name of assessee which has not been disclosed and that the alleged investment has been made from her bank account. The situation created by the Revenue authorities is that they have incomplete information about investment in M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management Ltd. through cheque but the assessee is denying to have issued any cheque from her bank account. Still Revenue authorities are alleging that you have made an investment. But once the assessee has denied to have made any alleged investment through banking channel, then the burden of proof shifts

6 Puja Suhas Deshmukh upon the Revenue authorities and they have to confront the assessee with evidence available with the Department showing the alleged investment having been made by the assessee through banking channel. Neither such details have been furnished before this Tribunal and nor before ld.CIT(A). Also even in the show cause notice ld. Assessing Officer is referring to a transaction of Rs.2.00 lakh which has been entered on19.12.2013 which even does not fall in A.Y. 2013-14. All these facts indicate that ld. Assessing Officer has not carried out the assessment proceedings in proper manner and has made the impugned addition merely based on surmises and conjectures and there is no reference to any evidence found against the assessee which could prove that alleged amount has been paid by the assessee through banking channel from her bank account not disclosed before the Revenue authorities. Therefore, finding of ld.CIT(A) is reversed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.5,68,000/- is hereby deleted. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on this 13th day of April, 2026. (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Nagpur/ दिन ांक / Dated : 13th April, 2026. Satish

7 Puja Suhas Deshmukh

Satish Kumar Madishetty आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, न गपुर SMC बेंच, 4. न गपुर / DR, ITAT, “Nagpur SMC Bench, Nagpur ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →