RAZAK ABDULKARIM MANSURI,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7, VAPI

4. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper

5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.

3. At the outset the registry of this court bring into the notice that this Appeal filed by the Assessee is delayed by 48 days. The assesse filed an affidavit of condonation of delay. During the period under consideration, the appellant was commission agent. He was engaged in a distributorship of Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd and had earned commission income from the same. He had earned rent ~ 2 ~ ITA- 352/SRT/2024 Razak Abdulkarim Mansuri income from the house property and interest income. The appellant is filling his return of income regularly He had filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 05/02/2018 with vide acknowledgement number 386334240050218 returning to the total income of Rs.6,52,730/- The appellants case was taken up for scrutiny assessment under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued on 28/08/2018. The reason for reopening the case is that the appellant had deposited cash during demonetization period in his bank accounts. During the period under consideration the appellant had maintained a bank account with Bharat Co-Operative Bank Limited having account number 07114100000046. The appellant had deposited cash of amounting to Rs. 95,07,000/- during the period of demonetization. It is to be noted that the appellant was engaged in a distributorship with Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd. The appellant had earned only commission income from the same which was duly shown by the appellant in his return of income while filling the same for the year under consideration. Thus, the source of cash deposits in the bank account is that the sales made by the appellant during that period. It is to be noted that the appellant had duly transferred the same to the company immediately So, the appellant had earned only commission income. However, ignoring the above mentioned facts and appellants submission the learned AO has made an addition of amounting to Rs 95,07,000/- being cash deposit made in the bank account and treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the IT Act. The learned AO has assessed total income of the appellant of amounting to Rs. 1,01,59,730/- after making an addition of amounting to Rs. 95,07,000/- on account of cash deposit to the returned income of Rs. 6,52,730/- 4. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no deliberate lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay ~ 3 ~ ITA- 352/SRT/2024 Razak Abdulkarim Mansuri and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application/affidavit. Ld. AR further submitted that the AO has made addition in respect of cash deposits in bank a/c during demonetization period but the assessee has sufficient documents to explain the source of deposits to AO. However, unfortunately, the assessee could not file documents during the course of assessment and for this reason, the AO treated entire deposits as unexplained money and made an addition in total income. But the assessee's case is meritorious and the assessee should be given one more opportunity to submit a detailed explanation to AO. Ld. AR, therefore, made twin prayers i.e. the delay in filing of appeal be condoned and this case ought to be remanded to AO for adjudication afresh after hearing assesse. Ld. DR for Revenue did not have any objection to the prayer of Ld. AR. He, however, requested that the assessee must be directed to represent his case before AO.

5. We have considered the submissions made by Ld. AR on behalf of assessees and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record related to service of order on asessee, the explanation offered by the assessee is found to have a "sufficient cause" for delay in filing present appeal. Section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time if the appeal filed along with application for condonation of delay where it was prayed to condone the delay if there is a "sufficient cause" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) of the Act. We take a judicious view and condone the delay in this appeal. At the same time, as agreed by both sides and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we are of the view to give one more ~ 4 ~ ITA- 352/SRT/2024 Razak Abdulkarim Mansuri opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent his case before AO for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, un-influenced by his earlier order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/01/2025.