ARUSHA ATUL BORA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-17(1)(1), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

12.09.2025for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. The assessee has raised

following grounds of appeal:

“1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the 1st appeal of 1139 days, though there existed bonafide reasons and compelling circumstances that had precluded the appellant to file the 1st appeal in time;

Arusha Atul Bora (AY: 2015-16) ITA No. 7850/Mum/2025 4. The Ld. CIT(A), ought to have decided the appeal on merits, on considering the understated vital facts, being; a) The cash deposits made in bank accounts is sourced out of withdrawal of cash from same bank accounts in earlier and impugned year; b) The documentary evidences containing date-wise details of cash deposits and withdrawals, bank statements and other documents are filed on assessment record.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that

assessment was completed on 27.12.2017. The assessee filed appeal before ld.

CIT(A). There was delay of 1139 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The

assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. CIT(A) instead of

condoning the delay dismissed the application for condoning delay, resultantly

appeal was also dismissed in limine without admitting it. The ld. AR of the

assessee submits that delay in filing appeal was neither intentional nor

deliberate. The assessment order was not served upon the assessee. The

assessment order contained the old address of assessee. Due to insolvency of

her husband, there was harassment and constant threat from creditors and

lenders the assessee and her husband shifted to Pune. Thus, the assessee could

not realise about passing of assessment order. The assessee realised about

passing of assessment order only when recovery proceeding was initiated. On

initiation of recovery proceeding the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) with

application for condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that

similar delay of 2037 days in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) in case of KKB

Arusha Atul Bora (AY: 2015-16) ITA No. 7850/Mum/2025 Properties Private Limited, wherein the assessee and her husband were director,

was condoned by ld. CIT(A). However, the delay in present appeal was not

condoned. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has good case on

merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity to give to contest the case

on merit. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessing officer

made addition on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account of Rs.

35,20,240/-. The assessing officer made addition by disregarding the closing

balance as on 31.03.2014 for the want of sufficient evidence. The ld. AR of the

assessee submits that matter may be restored to the file of assessing officer, the

assessee undertakes to explain and substantiate the cash deposit.

for the Revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. Sr. DR for the

Revenue submits that assessee has not explained the delay before ld. CIT(A).

The ld. Sr. DR further submits that assessee has raised additional ground of

appeal that notice under section 143(2) was not issued, therefore, in case the

delay is condoned, the matter may be restored back to the ld. CIT(A) who may

verify about issuance of notice under section 143(2).

through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that assessee has

raised additional ground of appeal that notice under section 143(2) was not

issued in time. No submission was made either for admission of additional

ground of appeal or in support of such additional ground of appeal, therefore,

Arusha Atul Bora (AY: 2015-16) ITA No. 7850/Mum/2025 such additional ground of appeal is treated as not pressed. Now adverting to

main contention of ld. AR of the assessee that appeal of assessee was dismissed

as unadmitted for the want of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee made two folds

plea before us. Firstly, the assessment order was not received and the assessee

came to know about passing of assessment order when recovery proceeding was

supported. Secondly, similar delay in case of KKB Properties Private Limited

wherein the assessee and her husband are directors, similar delay of more than

2000 days was condoned on the similar ground that due to insolvency

proceeding, the assessee was not at the given address and the delay was

condoned by ld. CIT(A).

having PAN in AADCK0579J, copy of which is available on record, the delay of

2037 days in filing appeal was condoned on similar explanation about delay.

However, in the present appeal, the similar delay was not condoned. Considering

the overall facts of the case, we find that assessee is interested in pursuing the

case on merit, therefore, the principle of law and limitation that when cause of

substantial justice are kept against each other, the cause of substantial justice

may be preferred. Hence, delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) is condoned.

We find that ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit. Before us, the

ld. AR of the assessee urged that one more opportunity may be given to the

assessee to substantiate the cash deposit and matter may be restored to the file

of ld. CIT(A). Thus, in the interest of justice, the matter is restored back to the

Arusha Atul Bora (AY: 2015-16) ITA No. 7850/Mum/2025 JAO to pass the assessment order afresh after given a fair and reasonable

opportunity to the assessee.

Order was pronounced in the open Court on 18/05/2026.

/- S/- /- SSd/- SSd/- GIRISH AGRAWAL PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated:18/05/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file.

By Order

Assistant Registrar / DDO ITAT, Mumbai