MR. YOGESH SANTOSH GULVI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the following grounds as under:-

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding the case on merits and without appreciating the facts submitted in the Grounds of Appeal.

That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- was duly explainable as it arose from sale of ancestral agricultural land and belonged to multiple family members, and therefore, addition u/s 69A was unjustified.

That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition u/s 69A solely on the basis of non-appearance, without examining the factual position and documentary evidence related to the source of cash deposit.

That the learned CIT(A) failed to consider that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause from submitting replies due to unavoidable circumstances, therefore the appeal should not have been dismissed in limine.

Without prejudice to the above, the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 u/s 69A is illegal, excessive and arbitrary and deserves to be deleted as the cash deposit was not unexplained but fully supported by the source of agricultural land sale.

The Advocate appearing for the appellant fell seriously ill and had been confined to bed for a long period of time. On enquiry, the appellant came to know that the Advocate had undergone bypass surgery on 04/03/2025, and even today the Ld. Advocate then appearing for the appellant has not fully recovered from this ill health and is even today under recovery.

Due to this unforeseen medical condition, the Advocate was unable to attend to the matter, and consequently, the appellant remained unaware of the notices issued. As a result, the hearing remained unattended inadvertently and without any deliberate intention.

The basis of the present appeal is supported by registered documentary evidence. The non-submission of such documents earlier was solely due to the above circumstances and not due to any negligence or intentional default on the part of the appellant. Assessment Year 2012-2013

The document annexed herewith is a sale deed dated 26/08/2010 in respect of the ancestral property of the appellants at Mauje Bhinar, Taluka Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane.

That the amount of Rs. 19,78,350/- has been received in cash by the appellant out of the aforesaid sale and as such the source of the same cannot be treated U/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. In view of the above the addition under present appeal of Rs. 20,00,000/-deserve to be deleted.

It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit present appeal.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on behalf of the Assessee and an application seeking adjournment was moved. On examining the memorandum of appeal, we noted that the Assessee was proceeded ex-parte by the Learned CIT(A). We have heard the Learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material on record.

The facts emerging from record are that assessment under Section Assessment Year 2012-2013

On perusal of the statement of facts filed before Learned CIT(A), we find that Assessee had contended that the cash deposited in the bank account represented consideration received by the Assessee from sale of ancestral land. It was stated therein that the Assessee alongwith 14 other family members had sold the land to M/s. Harmony Industries and Logistics. The first cheque of INR.3,00,000/- given as sale consideration had bounced. Therefore, the compromised was reached between the parties in terms of which cash was paid to the selling parties. Thus, it is the case of the Assessee that the source of cash deposits in the bank was the sale consideration received on sale of land alongwith family members. In the memorandum of appeal filed before this Tribunal it has been stated that counsel engaged by the Assessee for appellate proceedings before the Learned CIT(A) had fallen ill and had to undergo bypass surgery on 04/03/2025. The counsel has not been able to recover after the said surgery till date. Therefore proper representation could not be made before the Learned CIT(A), and for the same reason there was a delay of 71 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessee has made an application seeking condonation of delay which is supported by a duly sworn affidavit. We note that the Assessee has also filed registered Assessment Year 2012-2013

In terms of the paragraph 7 above, appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ/ Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीयŮितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.