JAMTARAM VIRARAM PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ायपीठ, मुंबई |
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“F” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT
&
SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 3561/Mum/2025
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Jamtaram Viraram Purohit
Room No. 512, 5th Floor
Ram Darshan Building
K.K. Marg
BIT Chawl
Mumbai Central
Mumbai - 400008
[PAN: ASEPP6732C]
Vs
Income Tax Officer, Wd-
20(2)(1), Mumbai
अपीलाथ/ (Appellant)
यथ/ (Respondent)
Assessee by :
Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR
Revenue by :
Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025
आदेश/O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated
27/03/2025 by NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2017-18. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:-
“1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing of 1% appeal on considering the reasonable cause and bonafide reasons that had precluded the appellant to file the 1" appeal in time;
2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the reasonable cause that had precluded the appellant to participate in the re-assessment proceeding;
I.T.A. No. 3561/Mum/2025
0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 is bad in law, since had been issued in mechanical manner, on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and in absence of tangible material, without reason to believe of escapement of income;
0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made u/s.68 r.w.s 11SBBE of Rs.17,22,42,000/- of alleged cash deposits made with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd;
0 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition u/s.68 of alleged cash deposits made in M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd of Rs.17,22,42,000/- and ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being:
a) The appellant had not made the disputed cash deposits in the account maintained with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd; b) The appellant categorically denies and disowns the disputed transactions, since the disputed cash deposits had not been made by the appellant; c) There does not exist any contrary material/evidence to establish the alleged cash deposits allegedly made by the appellant; d) The copies of contrary material, evidence and statements of 3rd parties and an opportunity of cross examination had not been provided to the appellant; e) The Ld. AO had not conducted any independent enquiry/investigation to establish the cash deposits allegedly made by the appellant;
0 Without prejudice, the provisions of Sec. 115BBE charging the tax @ 60%shall apply only on the transactions entered on or after 15/12/2016, being the date of granting the assent of President of India.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
I.T.A. No. 3561/Mum/2025
At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay of 799 days. It is the say of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that since the assessee did not receive any notice from the ld. CIT(A), the appellate proceedings could not be attended and the assessee could not justify the reasonableness in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew out attention to the affidavit filed before us. 4. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. We are of the considered opinion that since the delay was before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee must justify the delay before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish evidence/affidavit to justify the reasonableness of the cause for the delay in the filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh for considering the reasonableness in the cause for delay and if convinced, to decide the appeal on merits of the case. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on 31st July, 2025 at Mumbai. (SAKTIJIT DEY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 31/07/2025
*SC SrPs
*SC SrPs
*SC SrPs
*SC SrPs
I.T.A. No. 3561/Mum/2025
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. थ / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु! / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु! ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड% फाई/ Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER