SANJAY JAKHAD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1009/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 October 2026AY 2015-20165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal, finding that the war-like situation in Dubai and Oman involving Israel, USA, and Iran constituted a "sufficient cause" for the delay, aligning with the liberal interpretation of limitation provisions for advancing substantial justice as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a non-resident Indian, was held up in Dubai and Oman due to the conflict. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to make a fresh assessment, examine all evidence relied upon by the assessee, and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to ensure complete justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanjay Jakhad, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for assessment year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 60,94,500/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of cash deposits of Rs. 42,21,000/- and Rs. 39,16,500/- in his bank accounts, as the assessee failed to provide details of the credit and its source. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for want of prosecution. The present appeal before the ITAT was filed 108 days late. The assessee, a marine pilot working in Dubai and Oman, attributed the delay to unavoidable circumstances arising from the war-like situation involving Iran, Israel, and USA, which hindered international travel and communication, preventing him from coordinating the filing of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned on the grounds of unavoidable circumstances due to a war-like situation affecting international travel and communication. 2. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits is justified, considering the assessee's failure to provide complete evidence before the lower authorities. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond his control, specifically the war-like situation in Dubai and Oman involving Iran, Israel, and USA, which prevented him from returning to India and coordinating with his tax lawyer. The assessee relied on the principle of liberal interpretation for condoning delay as laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). - The assessee also raised grounds regarding computational errors, unjustified additions on account of sale of vehicles, gifts, and sale of jewellery, and failure to appreciate the cash flow statement, and violation of principles of natural justice, though these were not elaborated upon due to the procedural nature of the appeal. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue opposed the application for condonation of delay, arguing that the delay was not duly explained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “B” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER ITA No: 1009/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Sanjay Jakhad The ITO, Plot No. 175, Meni Nagar Ward-2(3), Vs Vistar Shiv Path, Vaishali Jaipur. (Respondent) Nagar, Jaipur. PAN: AIKPJ2421Q (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Revenue Represented: Mrs. Namita Patel, JCIT Date of hearing : 03-09-2026 Date of pronouncement : 13-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Sanjay Jakhad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2015-16 on the ground that:- “1. That the order passed by the Ld. AO/CIT-(A) is bad in law and on facts 2. That the Ld. AO/CIT-(A) erred in confirming addition on account of cash deposits.

I.T.A No. 1009/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Sanjay Jakhad

3.

That the authorities failed to consider computational error in assessment order. 4. That addition on account of sale of vehicles is unjustified. 5. That addition on account of gifts from family members is unjustified . 6. That addition on account of sale of jewellery is unjustified. 7. That the Ld. AO/CIT(A) failed to appreciate cash flow statement properly. 8. That principles of natural justice have been violated. 9. That the addition is excessive and without basis.

2.

Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: Return of income was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration was subjected to limited scrutiny. The assessee is a salaried person and running a training institute for marine services, claimed his income from salary, business, income from house property by claiming deduction of Rs. 1,54,950/- under Chapter-VIA and as such declared total income at Rs. 10,68,110/-. The Assessing Officer noticed a cash deposit of Rs. 42,21,000/- and Rs. 39,16,500/- in his saving bank account maintained with HDFC Bank Limited and ICICI Bank Limited respectively. On failure of the assessee to respond to the show cause notice and to produce person from whom, he has received the credit with source thereof, the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs. 60,94,500/- u/s 69 of the Act.

I.T.A No. 1009/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Sanjay Jakhad

3.

Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has dismissed the same for want of prosecution by the assessee. Being 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. At the very outset, It is brought to the notice of the Bench by the Ld. AR for the parties, to the appeal that the present appeal is time barred by 108 days and the assessee by moving an application supported with an affidavit sought to condone the delay on the grounds inter alia that the delay has been caused due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the assessee; that assessee is Marine pilot having resident visa of Dubai and work in both Oman and Dubai and due to war like situation arose involving Iran, Israel and USA, international travel and communication could not be carried out, thus could not return to India in time, to coordinate with his tax lawyer to file the appeal. 5. However on the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation of delay on the grounds that the delay is not duly explained and application may be dismissed.

I.T.A No. 1009/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Sanjay Jakhad

6.

When we examine the reasons put forth by the appellant explaining cause of delay, it is a fact on record that due to war like situation in Dubai and Oman involving Israel, USA and Iran foreigners working there were heldup and could not come to their native place to attend to their urgent work, which we find a “sufficient cause” to condone the delay, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC) wherein it is held that to advance the substantial cause of justice provisions contained under limitation Act for condonation of delay, needs to be liberally interpreted. Hence the delay of 108 days is condoned and the appeal is being hard on merits. 7. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 8. Bare perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that the assessee has failed to bring on record the complete evidence, firstly before the Assessing Officer, who has proceeded to make “best judgment assessment” and then before the Ld. CIT(A).

I.T.A No. 1009/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Sanjay Jakhad

9.

In view of the matter that the assessee is a non resident India and remained heldup in Dubai and Oman due to Israel, USA and Iran war and the fact that to impart substantial justice one more opportunity is required to be granted to the assessee, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The case is remanded back to the AO to make fresh assessment as he is required to examine the entire evidence relied upon by the assessee to do the complete justice by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13-10-2026 . Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 13/10/2026. *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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →