RUBINA RIZWAN THATIYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The order dated 21/05/2024 bearing No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1065035736[1] passed by the Honourable CIT[Appeal], ADDL/JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram, is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed.

At the very outset, I notice that there is a delay in filing the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay. Whereas, on the contrary, Ld. DR has contested the said application and requested to reject the application for seeking condonation of delay.

After having heard the counsels for both the parties and considering the entire factual position as explained before us, and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector v/s MSD Katiji & others 1987 AIR 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of the non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In my view, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance, hence considering the explanation put forth by the assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay, which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression ‘sufficient cause’. Liberally, I am A.Y. 2017-18 Rubina Rizwan Thatiya inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is admitted to be heard on the merits.

I notice that no proper representation was put forth by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). As per the records, I observe that additions on account of the fact that the assessee had made large cash payments amounting to Rs. 9,48,000/- made for credit card purchase. The only arguments taken by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings is by submitting that the source of cash deposit is drawing of Rs. 15,44,239/- from the capital account. However, the fact could not be substantiated, and for which, the assessee seeks more opportunities.

Be that as it may, considering the interest of justice and the facts of the present case, I feel that the issues between the parties are to be decided on merits. Therefore, keeping in view the said principles, the present appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings.

Before parting, I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter back to file Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or A.Y. 2017-18 Rubina Rizwan Thatiya expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2025.