SUMBUL ALAM,RANCHI vs. ASSISTANT COOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI
Facts
A search and seizure operation was conducted at M/s Alam Hospital, where the assessee, a doctor, is employed. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the total income at Rs. 4,47,146, finding no satisfactory explanation for the source of cash receipts. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 266-day delay in filing the appeal, noting it was due to the authorized representative's failure to act and not the assessee's negligence. The Tribunal restored the issue back to the AO for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide explanations.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO is sustainable when the assessee claims the amount is disputed and does not belong to them, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
69A, 44ADA, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M.
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of
the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] both dated 24/12/2024 for
the Assessment Years (AY) 2019-20 and 2022-23. Both these appeals have
identical facts and grounds, therefore, we decide these appeals by passing
the common order. Firstly we take ITA No. 411/Ran/2025 for the A.Y. 2019-
In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1. That the addition of amount of Rs. 4,47,146.00 under section 69A is bad in the eyes of law. 2. That the amount as assessed by the Ld. Assessing officer is itself disputable as many of the amount included in the assessed amount does not belong to the assessee, a detail of the same will be provided at the time of personal hearing.
ITA No. 411 & 412/Ran/2025 Sumbul Alam Vs ACIT
That the assessee had filed her return of income under section 44ADA declaring gross receipt amounting to Rs. 6,26,520.00 which is much higher than the assessed amount i.e. 4,47,146.00 and the assessee is taking liberty of not maintaining proper books of accounts as per the provisions of section 44ADA. 4. That the amount made through AHRC-5 were payment made to the assessee in the name of various nomenclature are actually payment made for the professional services rendered by the assessee towards Alam Hospital. 5. That the appellant reserves his right to add or curtail any grounds of appeal at the time of personal hearing."
We found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of 266 days in
filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of
delay was filed by the assessee mentioning the fact that for the income tax
compliances, the appellant's had appointed her Authorised Representative but
her Authorised Representative has failed to make any
representation/compliances before the revenue authorities. He repeatedly
reassured the appellant that all matters were progressing smoothly, thereby
misleading her into a false belief that she was duly represented. The
appellant, being unaware of the true situation, continued relying on these
assurances. The assessee stated that the delay in filing the appeal flows
solely from circumstances far beyond her control. There is not even the
slightest trace of deliberate delay, negligence, intention to evade, or benefit
gained. The delay was not intentional and deliberate and beyond the control
of the assessee and prayed that the delay may be condoned. The ld. Sr.DR
did not raise any serious objections. Therefore, considering the contents
made in the condonation petition, we condone the delay in filing the appeal
before this Tribunal.
ITA No. 411 & 412/Ran/2025 Sumbul Alam Vs ACIT
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Doctor in a private hospital
named as M/s Alam Hospital and Research Centre. In this case, a search and
seizure operated was conducted on 14/12/2022 in the case of M/s Alam
Hospital and Research Centre. Subsequently notice under Section 148 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued to the assessee and the
assessee filed his return of income in response to that notice declaring a total
income of Rs. 4,67,700/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income of
assessee at Rs. 4,47,146/- on the ground that the assessee has not given any
satisfactory explanation to explain the source of cash received by the
assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal
before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of
the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to explain the source
of cash receipts received from the hospital.
Further aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been filed by
the assessee before this Tribunal.
During the appellate proceedings before us, no one has appeared on behalf
of the assessee, however, considering the facts of the case, we find it fit to
restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to readjudicate the
issue after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain the
source of the payments/receipts. The assessee is also directed to cooperate
with the Assessing Officer and submit all necessary documents to explain the
source.
In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
ITA No. 411 & 412/Ran/2025 Sumbul Alam Vs ACIT
Similarly in ITA No.412/Ran/2025 for the A.Y. 2022-23, we find that in this
appeal, the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal except variation of
addition made by the Assessing Officer. We also find that the facts of the
case and the grounds of appeal as raised in ITA No. 411/Ran/2025 for the
A.Y. 2019-20 are similar, where we have restored the appeal back to the file
of Assessing Officer, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on
similar set of facts, this appeal of the assessee is also restored back to the file
of Assessing Officer with similar direction.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical
purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 05 March , 2026.
Sd- Sd- (GEORGE MATHAN) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ranchi, Dated: 05/03/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi
