ISMAIL NURMAHMAD SIPAI,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-3 PRESENT JURIS. - THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

ITA 1482/AHD/2025

AI Insights

Ismail Nurmahmad Sipai appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the addition of Rs.10,30,600 to his income for the Assessment Year 2011-12, citing unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was initially time-barred but accepted the explanation for the delay due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the proceedings after his retirement and the subsequent relocation of his accountant to Dubai. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented, which showed regular cash withdrawals and redeposits in the assessee's bank account, purportedly for medical expenses of his nephew, and found the explanations satisfactory, leading to the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822264 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVINDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SULABH PADSHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदा बा द \u0013ा यपीठ एस.एम.सी’, अहमदा बा द । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD \u001aी संजय गग , \u0013ा ियक सद क े सम!। Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No. 1482/Ahd/2025 िनधा \u000fरण वष\u000f /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ismail Nurmahmad Sipai 701, Aayat Avenue, 100 Feet Road, Near Zahra Mediplus Hospital, Ahmedabad City, PO: Juhapura, Ahmedabad – 380 055 बनाम/ v/s. The ITO Ward-3, Present Juris.– The ITO, Ward-1, Anand – 388 001 \u0013थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AFDPS 6431 H (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sulabh Padshah, AR Revenue by : Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 15/12/2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The appeal is time-barred by 1241 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed in the shape of an Affidavit, wherein, it has been deposed by the assessee that the assessee was a Government employee and had appointed one Accountant, namely, Shri Sulabh Padshah to look into his income-tax appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). That the assessee had provided Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1482/Ahd/2025 Ismail Nurmahmad Sipai Vs. The ITO Ward-3 Asst. Year: 2011-12 2 all the details and documents, which the said Accountant had also furnished before the Ld. CIT(A). In the meantime, there were substantial changes/amendments relating to the assessment/appellate authorities and procedure thereof and, hence, the appeal of the assessee which was filed physically, was transferred to faceless regime. It has been pleaded that the assessee, thereafter, contacted his Accountant many a times, however, he informed that since the appeal has been shifted to new regime, therefore, the notice will be received from National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and before that nothing can be said about the status of his appeal. It has been further pleaded that, in the meantime, the assessee got voluntary retirement from the service and shifted to his native place. The Accountant of the assessee, in the meantime, has also permanently shifted to Dubai. Under the circumstances, the assessee was not aware of the appellate proceedings before NFAC. It has been further pleaded that the assessee did not receive the copy of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) either physically or through email, if any, which might have been sent on the email id of by his earlier accountant, who had permanently shifted abroad. That the assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order only when the Department approached him for recovery of the tax amount. It has been submitted that, thereafter, the assessee immediately consulted a new Accountant/AR to immediately file the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Considering the above submission, I find that there is justification on the part of the assessee for the delay occurred in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is, therefore, condoned. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1482/Ahd/2025 Ismail Nurmahmad Sipai Vs. The ITO Ward-3 Asst. Year: 2011-12 3 4. The assessee, in this appeal, has contested against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.10,30,600/- out of total addition made by the AO of Rs.14,02,600/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR of the assessee has demonstrated before me that the assessee had duly furnished the relevant details and evidences before the lower authorities to show the source of the deposits. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the nephew of the assessee had got kidney problem and he required transplantation of the same. For that purpose, the assessee and his family members had to keep cash readily available with them. He has submitted that some of the cash amounting to Rs.4 lakhs was arranged through past savings as well as by taking loans from relatives and friends. That, the remaining amount of Rs.10 lakhs was nothing, but, out of cash withdrawals from the bank account of the assessee from time-to-time. The Ld. AR of the assessee has invited my attention to page No.7 of the paper-book to show that during the period from 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011, in every month, there were cash withdrawals and redeposits in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee, who has personally come to present before this Tribunal, in this respect has explained that the assessee and his family members had to take his nephew to the concerned doctor/hospital for transplant/treatment of kidney and for which they would withdraw the cash from the bank and if the hospital could not arrange for transplantation of kidney, the assessee would redeposit the cash amount in his bank account. The Ld.AR has invited my attention to the entry for the August-2010 during which an amount of Rs.4.39 lakhs was debited and amount of Rs.3.57 lakhs was redeposited. He has similarly demonstrated about the other entries and has further submitted that during Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1482/Ahd/2025 Ismail Nurmahmad Sipai Vs. The ITO Ward-3 Asst. Year: 2011-12 4 some months, the deposited amount was more than the withdrawal which was out of small cash loans received by the assessee. I find that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed these aspects. The AO has taken note of only for credit entries and he has totally ignored the fact that major amount was redeposited by the assessee out of cash withdrawals. The assessee has also given plausible reason for withdrawal and redeposit made regularly by him. Considering the above submissions, I do not find any justification on the part of the lower authorities in making/confirming the impugned addition and the same is, accordingly, ordered to be deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22/12/2025. Sd/- ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 22/12/2025 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की %ितिलिप अ)ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीला थ$ / The Appellant 2. %+थ$ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु- / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु-)अपील (/ The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभा गीय %ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदा बा द /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. गा ड फा ईल / Guard file. आदेशा नुसा र/ BY ORDER, स\"ािपत #ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "