JAMTARAM VIRARAM PUROHIT,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3561/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jamtaram Viraram Purohit against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The primary grievances included the non-condonation of a 799-day delay in filing the appeal, the mechanical issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and the erroneous addition of Rs. 17,22,42,000 as alleged cash deposits. The assessee argued that the delay was due to not receiving any notice from the CIT(A), which prevented participation in the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the delay needed to be justified before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal if the delay was found reasonable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713285 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK PERAMPURNA; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Reason to believe; Opportunity of cross examination; Tangible material; Borrowed satisfaction; Co-operative Credit Society
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" | आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ा यपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3561/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamtaram Viraram Purohit Room No. 512, 5th Floor Ram Darshan Building K.K. Marg BIT Chawl Mumbai Central Mumbai - 400008 [PAN: ASEPP6732C] Vs Income Tax Officer, Wd- 20(2)(1), Mumbai अपीला थ\u0016/ (Appellant) \u0017\u0018 यथ\u0016/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 27/03/2025 by NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2017-18. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing of 1% appeal on considering the reasonable cause and bonafide reasons that had precluded the appellant to file the 1\" appeal in time; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the reasonable cause that had precluded the appellant to participate in the re-assessment proceeding; Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 3561/Mum/2025 2 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 is bad in law, since had been issued in mechanical manner, on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and in absence of tangible material, without reason to believe of escapement of income; 4.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made u/s.68 r.w.s 11SBBE of Rs.17,22,42,000/- of alleged cash deposits made with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd; 5.0 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition u/s.68 of alleged cash deposits made in M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd of Rs.17,22,42,000/- and ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being: a) The appellant had not made the disputed cash deposits in the account maintained with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd; b) The appellant categorically denies and disowns the disputed transactions, since the disputed cash deposits had not been made by the appellant; c) There does not exist any contrary material/evidence to establish the alleged cash deposits allegedly made by the appellant; d) The copies of contrary material, evidence and statements of 3rd parties and an opportunity of cross examination had not been provided to the appellant; e) The Ld. AO had not conducted any independent enquiry/investigation to establish the cash deposits allegedly made by the appellant; 6.0 Without prejudice, the provisions of Sec. 115BBE charging the tax @ 60%shall apply only on the transactions entered on or after 15/12/2016, being the date of granting the assent of President of India. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 3561/Mum/2025 3 3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay of 799 days. It is the say of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that since the assessee did not receive any notice from the ld. CIT(A), the appellate proceedings could not be attended and the assessee could not justify the reasonableness in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew out attention to the affidavit filed before us. 4. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. We are of the considered opinion that since the delay was before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee must justify the delay before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish evidence/affidavit to justify the reasonableness of the cause for the delay in the filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh for considering the reasonableness in the cause for delay and if convinced, to decide the appeal on merits of the case. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 31st July, 2025 at Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 31/07/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 3561/Mum/2025 4 आदेश की \u0014ितिलिप अ\u0019ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u001b / The Appellant 2. \u0014 थ\u001b / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु! / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु! ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \u0014ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड% फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "