NIPA NISHITHBHAI PARIKH(EARLIER KNOWN AS NIPA K. MEHTA),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(10), AHMEDABAD

The above fact was stated before the “SMC” Bench during the course of hearing conducted on 17.12.2024 when the Bench directed the Revenue to produce the assessment record and produce copies of the bank statements of the two banks in which the AO had noted cash deposited pertaining to the assessee i.e. Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-op Bank (“AMCB”), Pankornaka Branch, Ahmedabad, and the Kalupur Commercial Co-op Bank (“KCCB” for short), Kokhara Branch, Ahmedabad. The contents of the order-sheet entry are reproduced hereunder:

On the next date of hearing i.e. 4-2-2025, the ld.DR fairly submitted that, on going through the assessment record, it is revealed that the cash deposited in the bank accounts noted by 4 the AO has nothing to do with the assessee, as the bank account with the “AMCB” is in the name of M/s.Anand Pharma Distributors which contained the entire cash deposit of Rs.43,49,650/- and belonged to the partnership firm of several partners whose names were reflected in the bank statement, copy of which was furnished before us. As for the other bank account i.e. the “KCCB” it was stated to be in the name of the assessee but was closed on 29.3.2013. The contents of the submissions made by the ld.DR admitting of the above facts are hereunder:

Bank Account No 066013304000005 maintained with The Ahmedabad Mercantile Coop Bank Ltd : This bank account is in the name of M/s Anand Pharma Distributors in which there is cash deposit of Rs 43,49,650/- post demonetisation (copy of bank statement of FY 2016-17 enclosed as Annexure A) 2. Bank Account No 00210109912 maintained with The Kalupur Comm. Co-op Bank Ltd : This bank account is in the name of Mrs Nipa Nishith Parikh which was closed on 29.03.2013 (copy of bank statement enclosed as Annexure B).”

In light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) was grossly unjustified in not condoning the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal.

The Ld.CIT(A) has not found the facts stated by the assessee to be false. Therefore the delay surely could not be attributed to any laxity on the part of the assessee, but was for reasons beyond his control. Further, as is evident from the assessment records and submissions placed before us, the alleged cash deposits, on the basis of which the addition of Rs.43,49,650/- was made under Section 69A of the Act, did not pertain to the assessee at all. It is an admitted fact, as recorded in writing by the Departmental Representative, that the bank account maintained with Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-operative Bank was in the name of M/s. Anand Pharma Distributors, a partnership firm, and not in the name of the assessee. Similarly, the bank account maintained with Kalupur Commercial Co- operative Bank was in the name of Mrs. Nipa Nishith Parikh and had already been closed on 29.03.2013, much prior to the relevant assessment year. Thus, in view of these undisputed and admitted facts, the very basis of the addition under Section 69A falls flat.

In the light of the aforestated fact undoubtedly not condoning the delay would result in gross injustice to the assessee, confirming addition to income and asking the assessee

Therefore considering that the assessee had adduced sufficient cause for the delay and not condoning it would result in gross injustice being caused to the assessee, we hold the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in not condoning the delay as highly unjustified and hold it to be a fit case for condoning delay. Further noting the admitted fact that the cash found deposited was not in the bank account of the assessee, I hold, that the addition of Rs.43,49,650/- is unsustainable in law and on facts, and is therefore liable to be deleted. Consequently, the impugned addition is deleted and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.