BHARAT NATHALAL ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds: 1. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in Law, Hon. NFAC, erred in rejecting appellant's repeated requests for seeking adjournments on the Ground that their Accounts were required to be re-written on the basis of the ledger printouts and trial balance available on records, but without the help of the staff.

Without Prejudice to 2. On the facts and c has erred in ignoring responded to appel response to the N allegations made ab incorrect and in viola
Without Prejudice to 3. On the facts and c has erred in ignorin erred in not givin assessment.
Without Prejudice to 4. On the facts and c has erred in ignorin erred in making
Undisclosed Income
2. Briefly stated, original return of in ₹72,40,746/-. Subse information regardin the assessee’s bank
Based on such info income chargeable notice under Section referred to as “the Ac
2.1Despite issuance
144 of the Act, the supporting material.
ITA the aforesaid Ground of Appeal; circumstances of the case and in law, Ho g the fact that Faceless Assessment Unit llant's Grievances and Comments subm
Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. Theref bout non-compliance/non-cooperation ar ation of Natural justice.
the aforesaid ground of appeal, circumstances of the case and in law, Ho ng the fact that Faceless Assessment U ng the Reasons Recorded for reopen the aforesaid grounds of appeal, circumstances of the case and in law, Ho ng the fact that Faceless Assessment U addition of Rs.25,56,500/- as ap e.
facts of the case are the ass ncome on 01.08.2017 declaring quently, the Assessing Officer r g cash deposits aggregating to account during the period of rmation, he recorded reasons to tax had escaped assessme n 148 of the Income-tax Act, 19
ct”) on 30.03.2021. of statutory notices under Sect assessee did not furnish any A final show-cause notice und
Bharat Nathalal Zaveri
2
A No. 4486/MUM/2025
on. NFAC t had not mitted in fore, the re totally on. NFAC
Unit had ning the on. NFAC
Unit had ppellant's sessee filed his g a total loss of received specific
₹25,56,500/- in demonetisation.
to believe that ent and issued
961 (hereinafter tions 142(1) and explanation or der Section 144

dated 04.03.2022, sp the source of the ca
Consequently, the A parte under Section ₹25,56,500/- as une
Act by order dated 29
2.2 The assessee ca
CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) hearing on different occasions adjournme complete absence o evidence was ever f source of cash depo under:
“
Date of Notice
3rd November,
2023
14th November
2023

20th February
2024

ITA pecifically calling upon the asse ash deposits, also remained un
Assessing Officer completed the n 144 of the Act and adde explained cash credit under Se
9.03.2022. arried the matter in appeal bef
) issued several notices fixing dates. The record reveals that ents were sought, on other d of compliance. Importantly, n filed to substantiate the claim osits. A detail notices issued is e
Compliance Date Remarks

10th November,
2023
No details furnished, petition for adjournme was received on 11 th
November, 2023. r,
21st November,
2023
No details furnished, petition for adjournme was received on - following dates:
1. 26th Novembe
2023
y,
27th February,
2024
No details furnished n any petition for adjournme was received.
Bharat Nathalal Zaveri
3
A No. 4486/MUM/2025
essee to explain ncomplied with.
e assessment ex ed the sum of ection 68 of the fore the learned g the matter for t while on some dates there was no documentary m regarding the s reproduced as ent h ent er, nor ent

The conduct o evidences tha
Appeal.”
2.3 The learned CIT held that the assesse him under Section 68
of the cash credits.
was found unsubst principles of natural opportunities had be the appellate stage.
the appeal was dism finding of ld CIT(A) is “6.4 It is notic cash deposits evidences eit appellant pr appellant dur proceedings c without addre
6.5 Even tho proceedings e issue at hand available with 6.6 In the Gro faceless unit and comment allegations m totally incorre
The ground however it is supporting ev passed that ITA of the Appellant, as inferred from the af at the Appellant is not interested in pr
T(A), after noting the repeated n ee had failed to discharge the 8 of the Act to establish the na
The explanation offered in gro tantiated, and even the plea justice was rejected on the gro een provided both at the assess
Accordingly, the addition was missed by order dated 29.02.202
s reproduced as under:
ced that the appellant has not explained s/credits in his bank accounts by way ther during the assessment proceedin roceedings before this office. The con ring the assessment proceedings as wel clearly reveals that he simply wants to d essing the core issue at hand.
ugh no submissions have been filed in except for statement of facts and grounds d and grounds of appeal are decided, bas h this office.
ound of appeal no. 1, it is claimed by the has erred in not responding to appellan ts submitted. It is further claimed that made about non-compliance/non-co- o ect and in violation of natural justice.
of appeal raised by the appellant is noticed that the claim made is not back vidences. It is also evident from the asse apart from notice u/s 148 of the Ac
Bharat Nathalal Zaveri
4
A No. 4486/MUM/2025
foresaid table, rosecuting the non-compliance, onus cast upon ture and source ounds of appeal of violation of ound that ample ment as well as confirmed and 24. The relevant the sources of of supporting ngs or in the nduct of the ll as appellate drag the case, the appellate of appeal, the sed on details appellant that nts grievances therefore the operation are s considered, ked by way of essment order ct issued, the assessee was and even a s assessment o not furnished
As such, the found to be m
2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) grounds on merit al was appealable withi appeal was filed befor delay of 442 days.
3. Before us, the a delay supported by a assessee explained chronic health co complications, and s attend to day-to-day
It was further submi intentional but was control. The relevant
“1. I am the A assessment y
2. I confirm th appeal before health issues application.
3. I state that solely due to u
ITA s issued statutory notices u/s 142(1) from show- cause notice was issued, prior to order. Contrary to the claims made, the the required details called for in these no grounds of appeal no. 1, raised by the misplaced and disposed.”
in his order dated 29.02.2024
so. The impugned order of the in 60 days of its receipt. Howev re this Tribunal only on 14.02.2
assessee filed an application for an affidavit. In the application a that due to his advanced ag onditions, including hyperte severe mobility restrictions, he affairs or pursue the appellate itted that the delay was neithe s occasioned by circumstanc part of his affidavit is reproduce
Appellant in the matter ITA No.: 4486/MU year 2017-2018. hat there has been a delay of 442 days e the Hon'ble ITAT due to my advanced a s, and circumstances explained in the ac t the delay was neither deliberate nor int unavoidable reasons beyond my control.
Bharat Nathalal Zaveri
5
A No. 4486/MUM/2025
m time to time o passing the appellant has otices issued.
e appellant is 4 dismissed the e learned CIT(A) ver, the present
2025, entailing a r condonation of and affidavit, the ge and multiple nsion, cardiac e was unable to remedy in time.
r deliberate nor ces beyond his ed as under:
UM/2025 for s in filing the age, multiple ccompanying tentional, but 4. I respectful interest of ju
4. We have heard condonation of the d settled that the Trib
253(5) of the Act rea may condone the de expression “sufficient the cause of subst technicalities.
4.1 In the present affidavit affirming h relevant period. The consistent with the d placed any material t or to show that the Court in Collector, La
(SC) has held tha considerations are i deserves to prevail, vested right in injus delay. Respectfully f assessee has demons of 442 days in filin proceeded to adjudica
ITA lly pray that the delay may kindly be con ustice.”
rival submissions of the parties delay of 442 days in filing the a unal, being vested with powers ad with Section 5 of the Limita elay if “sufficient cause” is dem t cause” is to be construed libe tantial justice rather than to case, the assessee has placed his precarious health conditi circumstances explained appea delay caused. Importantly, the R to controvert the assessee’s me e delay was deliberate. The H and Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (198
at when substantial justice in conflict, the cause of sub since the other side cannot c stice being done because of a following the ratio, we are sa strated sufficient cause. Accord ng the present appeal stands ate the matter on merits.
Bharat Nathalal Zaveri
6
A No. 4486/MUM/2025
ndoned in the s on the issue of appeal. It is well s under Section ation Act, 1963, monstrated. The rally to advance o defeat it on d on record an ion during the ar plausible and Revenue has not edical difficulties on’ble Supreme
87) 167 ITR 471
and technical bstantial justice claim to have a a non-deliberate atisfied that the dingly, the delay condoned and 4.2 On merits, it is compliant before the CIT(A). However, it is 68 was made purely assessee has now so claim by producing r source of cash depo issue relates to cas which requires factua availability of cash, aspects go to the roo the absence of prim desirable that the a place his case on re rather than on techn delay, we set aside t restore the matter considering the rep assessee in earlier pr deposited in the Pri receipt of this order.
such cost before pro to file all necessary claim, which the lea law and after affordin
ITA s undisputed that the assessee
Assessing Officer as well as be s equally true that the addition y for want of explanation and ought one more opportunity to s relevant records and explanation osits.. We are of the considered sh deposits during demonetisa al verification of the assessee’s past withdrawals, or other ot of the addition and cannot be mary evidence. In the interest assessee be afforded one final ecord so that the matter is dec nical defaults. Accordingly, while the impugned order of the lear to his file for fresh adjudica peated non-compliance on th roceedings, we impose a cost of ime Minister’s Relief Fund wit
The learned CIT(A) shall verify ceeding further. The assessee s evidence and submissions in arned CIT(A) shall consider in a ng due opportunity to both parti
Bharat Nathalal Zaveri
7
A No. 4486/MUM/2025
remained non- efore the learned n under Section d evidence. The substantiate his ns regarding the d view that the ation—a matter claim regarding sources. These e adjudicated in of justice, it is opportunity to cided on merits e condoning the rned CIT(A) and ation. However, he part of the ₹25,000/- to be thin 30 days of the payment of shall be entitled support of his accordance with ies.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ITA above, the delay of 442 days is to the file of the learned CIT( rits subject to the aforesaid of the appeal of the assessee on merit are rendered academ quired to be adjudicated.
the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 22/0
d/-
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Bharat Nathalal Zaveri
8
A No. 4486/MUM/2025
s condoned. The (A) for de novo condition. The are accordingly mic at this stage is allowed for 08/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai