SANTOSH MORE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1) MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 249 days due to the assessee's chartered accountant leaving midway. The assessee is a retailer milk booth owner who deposited cash from milk sales during the demonetization period. The addition was made under Section 69A of the IT Act for cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 249 days, citing the assessee's reasonable cause and relying on Supreme Court judgments regarding the liberal interpretation of sufficient cause for condoning delay. On merits, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Addition of cash deposited during demonetization period.
Sections Cited
69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SMT RENU JAUHRI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3203/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh More Income Tax Officer Room No.6/14, Hirji 20(3)(1) Bhojraj Chawl, Room No. 621, Kalachowki S.O., 6th Floor, Ambi Khalasa, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400033. Lalbaug, Pan:AOTPM3679Q Mumbai- 400012. (Appellant) (Respondent)
Present for: Assessee by : Shri Rayan Saldanha Revenue by : Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. A.R.
Date of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024
O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 10.08.2023 passed by NFAC Delhi for assessment year 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal: 1. “ The assessee prays that the delay of 249 days in filing the appeal be condoned.
Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is delay of 249 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that, the CA of the assessee left in the midway at the time when the appeal was pending before the first appellate authority. The assessee was therefore not aware about the status of
2.2. The Ld.AR thus prayed for the delay to be condoned and he placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the submission.
a) Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT & Another Vs. ISRO Satellite Center, in ITA No. 532 of 2008 vide order dated 28/10/2011 b) Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Hegde, Legal Heir of Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde Vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 2785/Bang/2004 order dated 25/04/2006 c) Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S.P.Shanmugavel Nadar (1987) 30 Taxmann 133 (Madras). d) Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT in ITA No.288/Coch/2017 dated 25.06.2018. e) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Anatek Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax-10(1) in ITA No.102 of 2018 dated 11.02.2022. f) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 and g) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507.
2.3. On the contrary the Ld.DR though objected the delay to be condoned could not controvert the submissions of the Ld.AR. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 2.4. From the affidavit filed by the assessee, there does not arise any malafide intention on behalf of assessee for not filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. 2.5. In our view, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for the delay that is caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. Nothing to establish any contrary intention has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. In our opinion there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 2.6. We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & 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
2.7. Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeals as it is not attributable to the assessee. In any event, though the procedural law pertaining to the limitation has been drafted to construe it strictly, the fact remains that, considering such technicalities will not advance the cause of justice.
Place: Mumbai, Dated: 30.12.2024 Snehal C. Ayare, Stenographer Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
