REEMA SEHRAAN GAZDAR, MUMBAI V. ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 850/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5828 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AIRIJU JAIKIRAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 850/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) Reema Sehraan Gazdar Flat No. 1702, Sana Heights Barkat Ali Virani Marg Nagpada, Mumbai-400 008. PAN : AZLPG0702D Vs. ITO-19(3)(1) Matru Mandir Income Tax Office, Grant Road Mumbai-07. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri N.C. Ranaganayakulu Department by Shri Airiju Jaikiran Date of Hearing 29.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 29.03.2022 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 4.4.2019 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16. Grounds of appeal read as under : 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in confirming the addition of Hs.2,37,354/- on account of cash in hand disregarding the fact that the said cash was generated out of beauty parlor business activity carried out by the Appellant over the years and the requisite documentary evidences viz. capital account, balance sheet, P &L A/c and daily register of parlor are filed on record. Therefore, once the source of cash in hand was explained, the addition on account of cash in hand by the Assessing Officer no addition for a small amount of cash in hand is liable to be deleted". 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the I.il CIT(A) was right in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,33,000/- on account of small amount of cash loans from certain parties ignoring the fact that the said loans were raised below Rs. 20,000/-, utilized for the purpose of Appellant's beauty parlor business, and the names, address, PAN No., confirmations, are filed to prove the genuineness, identity and credit worthiness of the said loan parties. Therefore, the onus of proving the said loan parties was established by the Appellant and, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted". Reema Sehraan Gazdar 2 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant's capital account, during the year under consideration, shows brought forward balance of Rs. 8,67,354/- thus the appellant has given loans and advances of Rs. 2,33,000/- and had cash balance of Us. 2,37,000/- out of the appellant's own capital and therefore, the addition made by the A.O is liable to be deleted". 4. "Whether on the faces and circumstances of the case and in law, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned as there was sufficient cause and reason, which prevented the Appellant in filing the appeal as the appellate order of CIT(A) was received late, and due to Covid-19 Pandemic and subsequent Lock-down the Appellant could not file the appeal in time. Therefore, considering this peculiar circumstances, the delay in filing this appeal may kindly be condoned". 3. At the outset it is noted that there is delay of 717 days in filing the appeal. In the submission for reasonable cause it has been submitted that actually the delay is of 696 days out of which 452 days pertain to Covid period and 244 days pertain to non-Covid period. For the reasonable cause assessee submits a letter from a person claiming to be tax consultant, wherein he stated that he has shifted his office and he could not file the appeal. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. On the issue of condonation of delay, I note that the reasonable cause attributed as far as 244 days for non-Covid period, has no cogency whatsoever. The said person claiming to be tax consultant has not appeared before us. Another person has appeared before us to say that he is an advocate for the assessee and the said reasonable cause attribution is by another person. Moreover the person claiming to be the consultant has mentioned in a letter that he has shifted his office and this has resulted in the day. The above said reasonable cause has also no cogency. In this view of the matter in my considered opinion reasonable cause cannot be accepted and the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine. Reema Sehraan Gazdar 3 6. In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.3.2022. Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 29/03/2022 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai