HITESH SURESH JADHAV,KALHER, THANE vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), KALYAN, KALYAN
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H(SMC
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI () & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ()
Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:
The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 13/10/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi, for assessment year
2017-18 on following grounds of appeal :
“
The appellant objects to the order dated 13 October 2023 passed under Section 250 of the Income tax Act by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center [CIT(A)] for 2
ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18
Hitesh Suresh Jadhav the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds:
1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of INR
23,83,645 made under Section 69A of the Income tax Act. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the cash amounts aggregating to INR 23,00,000 deposited in the bank account during demonetisation period were out of gifts received in cash from the family members.
2. The Appellant prays to set aside the order passed by the CIT(A).
3. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the above.
4. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend to the above grounds of appeal.”
2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is a delay of beyond 475 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal.
He placed reliance on the affidavit filed in support for condoning the delay as under:
“I, Hitesh Suresh Jadhav, at present residing at House No. 100, Near
TDC Bank, Post-Kalher, Taluka Bhiwandi, District-Thane -421302, hereby solemnly state, declare and affirm as follows:
1. I (the assessee) am a resident of India and assessed to income tax under PAN-ANHPJ8829N in India.
2. I am a small civil contractor and in the absence of any taxable income, I did not file my Income tax return for the Assessment Year
2017-18. 3. My case was selected for scrutiny for the Assessment Year 2017-18
on the basis of cash deposit of INR 23,00,000 made in the bank account during the demonetisation period and no income tax return was filed by me for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Although the appellant did not receive the initial notices from the Assessing officer under Section 143(2) and 142(1) in view of the said notices issued to wrong email-id as well as address; but he appeared before the Assessing Officer after the show cause notice being issued before completing the assessment.
Inspite of explaining the source of deposit to the Assessing officer orally during the assessment proceeding, the learned Assessing Officer
3
ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18
Hitesh Suresh Jadhav completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Income tax Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 4. On filing the appeal against the said assessment order before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in the absence of documentary evidences being filed in respect of family members did not have bank account and the appellant received cash from them by way of gift.
5. It appears that the CIT(A) has passed the order on 13 October 2023. I would like to bring to your notice that there is a delay of 475 days occurred in filing the appeal before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal
(ITAT) against the CIT (A). This is because the communication received from income tax department in the form of email-id and mobile with regard to the issuance of the order by the CIT (A) might have been unnoticed by me. When I got the demand recovery notice from the tax department on 3 September 2024, I came to know about the passing of order by the learned CIT (A) on 13 October 2023. 6. In view of the above reasons, there is a delay of 475 days occurred in filing the appeal before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the CIT(A) and this delay was unintentional.
7. I request the hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay occurred while filing the appeal before the ITAT against the order passed by the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and decide the matter on merits.
I make the above statements conscientiously believing the same to be true, at Mumbai, this 24 January 2025”
2.1 Having regard to the above submissions by the assessee, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. dated 25.6.2018, condoned the delay of 2819 days by observing as follows:
“6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons and prayed for condonation of delay. The reason stated by the assessee is due to inadvertent omission on the part of Shri
Unnikrishnan Nair N, CA in taking appropriate action to file the appeal. He had a mistaken belief that the appeal
4
ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18
Hitesh Suresh Jadhav for this year was filed by the assessee as there was separate Counsel to take steps to file this appeal before the ITAT. Therefore, we have to consider whether the Counsel’s failure is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Madras High Court considered an identical issue in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT
(280 ITR 357) and held that mixing up of papers with other papers are sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.
The Madras High Court further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted to advance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay.
1 On merit the issue is in favour of the assessee. But there is a technical defect in the appeal since the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. The assessee filed an affidavit saying that the appeal was not filed because of the Counsel’s inability to file the appeal. The Revenue has not filed any counteraffidavit to deny the allegation made by the assessee. While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay.
5
ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18
Hitesh Suresh Jadhav
(5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.
(6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. In the case on our hand, the issue on merit regarding allowability of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act was covered in favour of the assessee by the binding Judgment of the juri ictional High Court. Moreover, no counter-affidavit was filed by the Revenue denying the allegation made by the assessee. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appeal was not filed deliberately. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalising an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorised by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 2819 days has to be condoned.” 2.2 In the present facts, it needs to examined whether the reason stated by the assessee to seek condonation of delay before Ld.CIT(A) are sufficient to condone the delay and whether, there exists sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) within the period of limitation under the statute, the assessee must show that, it was diligent in taking appropriate
6
ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18
Hitesh Suresh Jadhav steps and the delay was caused notwithstanding with its due diligence. It is for the party concerned to explain the reasons for delay and it is not the function of concerned authorities often to find cause for delay. The Court/authority has to examine whether the sufficient cause has been shown by the party for condoning the delay, and whether such cause is reasonable or not.
2.3 In case of People Education & Economic Development Society
Vs. ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), it was held that;
“when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”.
2.4 The next question that arises is whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not able to file the appeals within the period of limitation. The cause for the delay therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P.
Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive.
7
ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18
Hitesh Suresh Jadhav
5 Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust reported in 280 ITR 357 held that, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance and the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Therefore, this Judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court (supra) clearly says that in order to advance substantial justice which is of prime importance, the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Therefore, for the purpose of advancing substantial justice which is of prime importance in the administration of justice, the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. In opinion of this Tribunal, this decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court is applicable to the present facts of the case. A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad). 2.6 We also refer to the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the delay of 180 days when, the appeal was filed after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 2.7 It is also to be noted that the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.
8
ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18
1978 SC 537 held that, non-filing of affidavit in opposition to an application for condonation of delay may be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In this case, the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee, therefore, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that;
“It does not mean that when the delay was for longer period, the delay should not be condoned even though there was sufficient cause.
Condonation of delay is the discretion of the Court/Tribunal.
Therefore, it would depend upon the facts of each case. In our opinion, when there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, the delay deserves to be condoned, irrespective of the duration/period.”
2.8 At this juncture, we also take assistance and support from the observations of Justice Krishna Iyer as he has quoted at various occasion while dealing with technicalities that “any interpretation that alludes substantive justice is not to be followed and that substantive justice must always prevail over procedural technicalities”. Even Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector
Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR
471 has laid down a ratio of similar principles.
2.9 We therefore are of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the assessee to present the appeal within time before this Tribunal deserves consideration based on the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land
Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. 9
ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18
Hitesh Suresh Jadhav
10 Reliance is placed on following observations by Hon’ble & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:- “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.
And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :
Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.” The Ld.CIT(A) shall consider the cause that lead to delay and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee.
10
ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18
Hitesh Suresh Jadhav
On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that the addition is based on the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetisation period that requires necessary verification. It is noted that the authorities below has not considered the following CBDT Circulars. a) The 1st instruction was issued on 21/02/2017 by instruction number 03/2017. b) The 2nd instruction was issued on 03/03/2017 instruction number 4/2017. c) The 3rd instruction was in the form of a circular dated 15/11/2017 in F.No. 225/363/2017-ITA.II and the last one dated 09/08/2019 in F.no.225/145/2019-ITA.II. 4. The assessing officer is directed to verify the demonetised cash deposited during the year under consideration based on the circular applicable to the assessee to the present facts. The assessee is directed to furnish the PAN and KYC details of all the depositors in order to assist the Ld.AO to consider the claim in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/03/2025 (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) Judicial Member Mumbai: Dated: 28/03/2025 Poonam Mirashi, Stenographer
11
ITA No.771/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18
Hitesh Suresh Jadhav
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order
(Asstt.