RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1055/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 August 2026AY 2012-20137 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's non-resident status and age. It accepted additional evidence and remanded the case to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident individual, failed to file her return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained cash deposits and sale of property. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether to admit additional evidence for fresh adjudication by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 1055/JPR/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Rajni Vinod Malhotra Deputy C/o Rajni Shahani, 1002, Commissioner Vs Tolaram Tower, Chembur, of Income Tax, Mumbai. International PAN: BHBPM0405Q Tax, Jaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Rohan Sogani, C.A. Revenue Represented: Sh. Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 13-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 31-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Rajni Vinod Malhotra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua the assessment order for Assessment year 2012-13 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,19,25,319/- as unexplained investment, without appreciating

I.T.A No. 1055/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Rajni Vinod Malhotra

that the deposits represented renewals of NRE fixed deposits made out of foreign inward remittances.

2.

The appellant submits that there is a delay of about 54 days in filing the present appeal, which the appellant respectfully prays may be condoned, as the delay was on account of bona fide reasons including the appellant being a non-reisdent individual, not being physically present in India, and the time required to obtained historical NRE account documents from India Banks which are over 15 years old for which she had to personally travel from Qatar to India. The delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and has occurred due to genuine and reasonable causes.

3.

The appellant craves leave to amend, alter or delete the above ground of appeal.”

2.

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : On the basis of information received through AIR it is noticed that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 48,05,000/- in her saving bank account and sold immovable property to the tune of Rs. 75,00,000/- during the year under consideration. Since the assessee had not filed her return of income, the AO proceeded to believe that the income had escaped assessment. Thereafter in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,78,200/- and consequently, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 48,05,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit,

I.T.A No. 1055/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Rajni Vinod Malhotra

and addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- on account of sale of property of Rs. 2,19,25,319/- as unexplained investment. 3. Assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 54 days and sought to condone the delay on the grounds inter alia that the assessee is a non resident individual residing in Doha, Qatar since 1992 and not tech savvy; that the assessee has not received the appeal order passed by Ld. CIT(A) since email containing the said order went to spam folder and remained unnoticed; that the assessee has got notice of the impugned order upon receipt of order giving effect from Income Tax portal and filed the appeal. 5. We are of the considered view that since the assessee is an old lady of 67 years residing in Doha, Qatar as nonresident India and explanation that order sent through her email fell into spam is sustainable. It is a matter of common knowledge that bulky mails sometimes went in spam. Moreover the assessee being old lady of 67 years also claims to be not tech savvy and for substantial justice she is entitled to be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. So we

I.T.A No. 1055/JPR/2025 Page No 4 Rajni Vinod Malhotra

find “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 54 days in filing the present appeal, hence the appeal is being heard on merits. 6. We have heard Ld. ARs for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 7. Bare perusal of the assessment order and impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that addition made by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) are due to the facts that the assessee has not placed on record necessary evidence in support of her case. Undisputedly, the assessee is having NRO account. She has sold immovable property of Rs. 75,00,000/- during the year under consideration and out of the sale proceeds she had purchased a flat no.301, 3rd floor, Gold Crest, Ghatla Village Road, Chembur, Mumbai of Rs. 69,12,600/-and claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act, however the assessee had failed to submit supporting documents to the AO. 8. Similarly, in case of addition of Rs. 2,19,25,319/- on account of new investment in fixed deposit, out of which investment of Rs. 2,14,25,319/- in Canara Bank and Rs. 5,00,000/- Saraswat Co- operative Bank and most of the deposits were out of renewal of NRE deposit made from her NRI account. On failure of the Canara bank to reply to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, the AO made addition.

I.T.A No. 1055/JPR/2025 Page No 5 Rajni Vinod Malhotra

9.

Now, the assessee has come with an application moved under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 for entertaining additional evidence viz; confirmation letter dated 21.07.2025 issued by Canara bank Chembur Camp Branch, Mumbai; deposit-wise statement of fixed deposits for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, signed and stamped by Canara Bank Chembur Branch, Mumbai; confirmation letters dated 17.07.2025 issued by Canara Bank, Rajouri Garden Branch and by Canara Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch; statement of account of Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2018; Sample copies of NRE fixed deposit receipts issued by Canara Bank, Chembur Branch, along with a list thereof; statement of non-resident savings bank account maintained with Canara Bank, Chembur Branch, Mumbai, covering the period 01.01.2009 to October 2012 on the ground inter alia that the assessee is an old lady of 67 years, in a non-resident Indian residing in Doha, Qatar along with her entire family; that she has been maintaining her account in Canara Bank, Chembur Camp Branch, Mumbai since 25.10.1991; that from early 2020 and till 2023 assessee’s travel to India was curtailed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Bcause of the fact that Canara Bank did not reply to the notice issued to it by the Assessing Officer u/s 133(6) of the Act, deposit-wise particulars could not be verified.

I.T.A No. 1055/JPR/2025 Page No 6 Rajni Vinod Malhotra

10.

Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed this application on the ground of that this is second round of litigation and assessee has been negligent throughout in producing the necessary details firstly before the AO then Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter before the Tribunal in the first round of litigation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. We are of the considered view that in the totality of circumstances it’s a fact on record that the assessee is an old lady of 67 years and non resident Indian has failed to bring all the facts on record along with supporting evidence, because of which she could not pursue her case. In case application is not allowed gross injustice would be done. Because complete documents and details is required to be examined by the Assessing Officer for substantial justice. So we are of the considered view without entertaining this additional piece of evidence the issue before the Tribunal cannot be decided once for all and it would lead to the multiplicity of the proceedings. 12. So in view of the matter we hereby accept the application being brought on record by way of additional evidence. No doubt this is second round of litigation but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the entire additional evidence is required to be examined by the Assessing Officer afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

I.T.A No. 1055/JPR/2025 Page No 7 Rajni Vinod Malhotra

13.

So the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and case is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after expressing additional evidence brought on record by the assessee. 14. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31-08-2026

Sd/- PSd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 31/08/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →