INDIRA VASHDEV GANDHI,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 29(1)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3417/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Indira Vashdev Gandhi, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary contention was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on grounds of non-prosecution without adjudicating on the substantive issues raised. The appellant also challenged the additions made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained cash credits related to bank deposits. The Tribunal noted the procedural lapses and the need for a fair hearing, particularly highlighting the appellant's status as a senior citizen, which warranted a more considerate approach in providing opportunities for representation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712726 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)-[2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA S. MAHAJAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3417/MUM/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2012-13) Indira Vashdev Gandhi 634, Raj Legacy, 2 Building 1 Wing, LBS Marg, Vikhroli West, Mumbai 400083 v/s. बिधम Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1)(5), Mumbai Kautilya BKC Bandra, Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AJZPG7601H Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR. DR सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 14.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 28/07/2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 28.07.2023 as passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law since it dismisses the appeal on the reason of non-prosecution and does not adjudicate on the grounds/additional grounds of appeal and the issues under consideration. The said order being in violation of the provisions of Section 250 and 251 of the Act and the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in \"CIT vs. Premkumar Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No. 3417/Mum/2025 Ay 2012-13 Indira Vashdev Gandhi Arjundas Luthra (HUF)-[2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay)\" may be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the \"the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte in violation of the principle of natural justice. Thus, the order dated 28.07.2023 may be set aside and the matter may be restored back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (\"the learned Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act which was made by the learned assessing officer on the basis of the deposits appearing in the bank account with Bank of India. It is well settled principle of law that section 68 addition cannot be made on the basis of entries appearing in the bank statement in the absence of books of accounts maintained by the Assessee. Thus, the said addition of Rs. 1,11,15,000/- being contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of \"CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom.)\" may be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- being unsustainable in law may be deleted. 5. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 51,15,000/- being unsustainable in law may be deleted. 6. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- being unsustainable in law may be deleted. Miscellaneous ground: 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind, or amend any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts are that the assessee did not file return of income for AY 2012- 13. Based on the information received by the department regarding purchase of immovable property and deposits in savings bank account, the case was reopened and a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2018. In response to this notice, the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 2,42,040/- on 09.05.2018. In response to various notices issued by the Ld. AO, the assessee furnished written reply giving explanation regarding the source of deposits in Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No. 3417/Mum/2025 Ay 2012-13 Indira Vashdev Gandhi the bank account. However, no documentary evidence in support of various claims was filed. Accordingly, Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act and made an addition Rs.1,11,15,000/- to the returned income and finalised the assessment at an income of Rs. 1,13,57,040/-. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In responses to the notice dated 26.01.2021, the assessee requested for an adjournment. Subsequently another notice was issued on 28.04.2023 to which no compliance was made by the assessee. We have perused the grounds of appeal and after material placed before us. We observed that the assessee is a senior citizen nearly 80 years of age. Considering that sufficient opportunity was not been granted by the Ld. CIT(A), in view of the fact and considering the circumstances and the fact that assessee is a senior citizen, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A). 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- AMIT SHUKLA RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 30.07.2025 दिव्य रमेश न ुंिग वकर/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No. 3417/Mum/2025 Ay 2012-13 Indira Vashdev Gandhi 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "