SOHAIL MAKLAI ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI

At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal of assessee is time barred by limitation by 461 days. The appellate order of CIT(A) was received by the assessee on 17.02.2017, thereby the assessee is to file appeal on or before 17.04.2017. But, actually the appeal was filed only on 23.05.2018. The assessee contended before me in his affidavit that the order of CIT(A) was received by the assessee staff in the office. During this period, the assessee was not attending the office due to illness of his mother Mrs. Balkis Maklai and so for under treatment for a chronic disease Pulmonary Lung Fibrosis. She was admitted and undergoing treatment in Breach Candy Hospital in Mumbai. Due to this reason, the assessee could not file the appeal but as and when Income Tax Department insisted for recovery of tax dues, the assessee decided to file the appeal, the moment he became aware of the same again. Accordingly, the appeal was filed. When this was confronted before me, the learned CIT DR contested the condonation.

I have gone through the reasons stated by the learned Counsel for the assessee as the assessee’s mother was not well and undergoing treatment during that period. I noticed that the cause is reasonable and hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.

The learned Counsel for the assessee first of all took us through the order of CIT(A) which is an ex-pate. Even, the learned 3 Counsel for the assessee took me through the order of CIT(A), wherein the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 10,50,890/- in the bank account. The learned Counsel stated that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also passed an non-speaking order. He referred to Para 3.3 of the appellate order which reads as under: - “3.3 I have considered the issue under appeal, carefully. I find that the Appellant has deposited cash of ₹ 20 lakhs in Bank Account. Out of ₹ 20 lakhs, the Appellant has explained that an amount of Rs. 9,49,110/- was form cash in hand as on 01.04.2010. As regards balance amounts have been deposited after obtaining money from family members, friends and Associates has not been substantiated hence, I find that the Ld. Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition of ₹ 10,50,890/-. Therefore, addition so made is sustained.”