SHALINI SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 780/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-18)

Shalini Soni Vs. ACIT 19D New Colony Razad Building CAD Gumanpura Kota Circle Kota �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AFEPS 8450 H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Swatika Jha, Adv Respondent by : Ms. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 31.08.2026 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, CIT(A), Udaipur 02 (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 30.09.2023 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 530 days. An application by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay has been filed before me. The contents of the same are read as under:-

P a g e | 2 ITA No.780/JPR/2025 Shalini Soni 1. That the Id. CIT (Appeals) passed his order on 30.09.2023 and the same was uploaded on the income tax portal of the assessee appellant and copy of the same was received on the Email of the assessee. 2. That the aforesaid order was not challenged by the assessee appellant to avoid litigation, however subsequent to the CIT(A) order penalty order has also been passed. 3. That subsequently, the assessee appellant contacted Shri Siddharth Ranka, Advocate. On his opinion, without any further delay, at the first opportunity, the assessee with the help of his counsel has filed this appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur with delay. 4. With this background, we request your honour to take stock of the situation in totality, take a lenient and human approach towards the humble assessee appellant as the delay was not intentional and lack of understanding of the income tax proceedings. The assessee appellant applicant shall be more vigilant about is obligation in future. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the contents of the application to explain the cause leading to the delay in the filing of the appeal. He pleaded the same to constitute sufficient cause so as to condone the delay. 4. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the condonation of delay contending that the reason brought out by the assessee reflected laxity on her part in pursuing the remedy of filing appeal and therefore the delay ought not to be condoned. 5. I have heard both the parties. The assessee essentially has stated the reason for the delay, being unaware of the implications of not challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A), i.e. of being held liable to penalty for the addition sustained. She has stated to have not challenged the Ld. CIT(A)’s order before me initially so as to avoid litigation, which undoubtedly involves cost and time and efforts also and to have filed appeal only when penalty notice was issued to her. As per the

P a g e | 3 ITA No.780/JPR/2025 Shalini Soni assessee, it was only when she became aware of the serious consequences of not pursuing the appeal,by way of penalty, that she filed appeal before the ITAT resulting in delay of 530 days. 6. Facts on record reveal the assessee to be a salaried employee earning salary of Rs. 12 lacs during the year and residing in the town of Kota, Rajasthan. There is no history of the assessee being subjected to scrutiny assessment in the past and being found by the Revenue authorities to have income not disclosed to tax .Addition in the present case has been made of cash found deposited in her bank account during demonetization, the source of which remained unexplained, the amount so added being more than the income returned to tax, of Rs.13.90 lacs. Clearly the explanation of the assessee for the delay appears to be justified considering the surrounding facts and circumstances. No ordinary common man would willingly embrace litigation and the attempt is to avoid it at all costs, since it is not only a drain on financial resources but also on the time and emotion of a person also. It is fair enough therefore to believe that the assessee decided to accede to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) to avoid litigation. It is fair also to believe, considering the facts and circumstances of the assessee, that she was unaware of the consequences to follow this decision of hers, by way of penalty proceedings being initiated for the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s explanation for the delay, I find, constitutes sufficient cause, so as to condone the delay of 530 days in the filing of the appeal before me.

P a g e | 4 ITA No.780/JPR/2025 Shalini Soni 7. Moreover the law governing condonation of delay is now well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &Anr. v. Mst. Katiji&Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) laid down that the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Court further observed that there is no presumption that delay is deliberate or occasioned on account of culpable negligence or mala fides and that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly. 8. Considering the fact that addition made to the income of the assessee is more than the income returned to tax interest of justice demands the delay to be condoned. Further finding the assessee to have adduced sufficient cause for the delay,I condone the delay of 530 days in the filing of the present appeal before me. Order was pronounced in the Open Court. 9. Taking up the appeal for hearing, the grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(Appeal) has grosslyerred in making addition of Rs. 11,40,000/- out of the total addition of Rs. 13,90,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposited in bank accounts without appreciating the facts of the case and the scope of provisions of above section. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(Appeal) has grosslyerred in making addition under section. 69A of the Income Tax Act ignoring the fact that section 69A cannot be applied in respect of cash deposited which has been duly

P a g e | 5 ITA No.780/JPR/2025 Shalini Soni recorded in the books of account and has already been declared as income in the return of income filed by the assessee. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing. Inadvertently 10. The solitary issue in the present appeal pertains to the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in the bank account of the assessee, the source of which remained unexplained. 11. In the facts of the present case, the assessee was noted to have deposited Rs.13,90,000/- in her savings bank account during demonetization period, the source of the same was explained as out of cash balance as on 01.11.2016 of Rs.7,08,636/- and salary from Princess Collection in the month of November Rs.7,50,000/-, thus having total balance of Rs.14,58,636/- out of which Rs.13,90,000/- was deposited. The AO rejected the explanation of the assessee in the absence of any corroborative evidence furnished by the assessee of having received salary from Princess Collection and any justification for the source of opening balance of cash available with her. The salary from Princess Collection was noted to have been received in a span of four days and noting no corroborative evidence being filed by the assessee, the explanation of the source of cash deposited in bank account of the assessee was rejected and addition made of the entire amount of Rs.13.90 lacs to the income of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) gave benefit of opening balance of cash available with the assessee to the extent of Rs.2.50 lacs, noting the assessee to have regular source of

P a g e | 6 ITA No.780/JPR/2025 Shalini Soni income by way of salary found to have been returned to tax in the preceding year also to the tune of Rs.18lacs. Accordingly, he restricted the addition to Rs.11.40 lacs. 12. I have heard both the parties and considered all the facts on record. The assessee has deposited a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- in cash during the demonetization period and has attributed Rs.7,50,000/- to have been sourced from the salary received by her from her employer i.e. Princess Collection and the balance to the cash available with her out of her own savings. It is an admitted fact on record that the assessee had returned income from salary to tax in her return of income filed amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- in the impugned year and in the preceding year also she had returned income from salary amounting to Rs.18,00,000/- from Princess Collection. The reason for rejecting assesses explanation of availability of cash from salary received of Rs.7.50 lacs is that no evidence of having earned salary income was filed by the assessee. But surprisingly, the salary income of Rs.12 lacs returned to tax by the assessee has been accepted by the Revenue. It appears that the Revenue is blowing hot and cold on the issue. Having accepted the fact of assessee earning salary income during the year, the assesses explanation of the source of cash deposited in bank to the tune of Rs.7.50 lacs being from salary income cannot be discarded for want of evidence of earning salary. Therefore addition to the tune of Rs.7.50 lacs is deleted. Further in the absence of any evidence furnished for substantiating the claim of balance deposit being out of cash balance

P a g e | 7 ITA No.780/JPR/2025 Shalini Soni available with the assessee, I see no reason to delete the balance addition of Rs.3.90 lacs. Addition to the said extent is sustained. 13. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2026.

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 31.08.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur