M/S. NITABEN BHARATKUMAR PAREKH,SURAT V. ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, CHENNAI

ITA 731/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by M/s Nitaben Bharatkumar Parekh against the order of the Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issues in the appeal were the addition of Rs. 4,79,000 as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the IT Act, the absence of a show cause notice, and the non-reference to Section 115BBE in the assessment order. The assessee, a senior citizen, faced challenges in receiving electronic communications due to her lack of email usage and unfamiliarity with the faceless assessment procedure, leading to a delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal found the delay to be unintentional and condoned it, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technicalities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778262 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: RONAK PAREKH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 731/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 M/s Nitaben Bharatkumar Parekh, 33 Royal Bunglows, Opp. Laxmi Bunglows Vesu Surat-395007. Vs. Add/JCIT(A)-2, Chennai, Surat. PAN NO. ADLPP 7174 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ronak Parekh, AR Revenue by : Mr. Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 08/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in making addition U/s. 69A of the IT Act for the cash deposit in the bank account amounting to Rs. 4,79,000/-. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the assessment order without issue of show cause notice. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 731/SRT/2025 2 M/s Nitaben Bharatkumar Parekh 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the assessment order without referring Sec. 115BBE in assessment order and giving the effect in Computation Sheet only. 4. It is therefore prayed that all the evidence are on record, hence the assessment order being excessive and unjustified be set aside. 2. At the threshold, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal, as communicated by the Registry vide its letter dated 09.02.2025. In support of the prayer for condonation of delay, the assessee has filed a duly sworn affidavit explaining the circumstances which occasioned such delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the affidavit and submitted that assessee was not using e-mail ID and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was not received on the registered address of the assessee and therefore, could not respond to faceless procedure The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under: “Sub.: Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing of appeal for A.Y 2017-18 Reg : NITABEN BHARATKUMAR PAREKH 33 ROYAL BUNGLOWS, OPP LAXMI BUNGLOWS VESU SURAT 395007, Gujarat. PAN. ADLPP7174Q I the undersigned, Smt. NITABEN BHARATKUMAR PAREKH, want to inform your honour that the appeal in my case could not be filed in time due to the following reasons:- (1) I am at the age of 62 Years. (2) I am not using any email id. Order of CIT(A) is not received at my registered address. (3) I am not able to respond any notice under Faceless Assessment Model. (4) I also admitted that in case of hearing notice before any govt. authority, I will prefer to receive the notice at my registered address, so I can came to know about the status of the proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 731/SRT/2025 3 M/s Nitaben Bharatkumar Parekh It is prayed that the above delay in filing the appeal may please be condoned as the same has occurred due to above reason. We shall always remain grateful for the act of kindness. Whatever stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I know that to make false affidavit is an offence.” 2.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, relying upon the aforesaid affidavit, submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to genuine and bonafide reasons. He thus prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the condonation of delay, contending that the assessee ought to have been vigilant and cannot plead ignorance of proceedings as an excuse. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is a settled principle of law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. A liberal approach is warranted while considering applications for condonation of delay, provided the explanation offered does not smack of mala fides or deliberate inaction. 3.1. In the present case, the assessee is a senior citizen of 62 years, admittedly not conversant with the faceless e-proceeding mechanism and digital communications through e-mail. The Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 731/SRT/2025 4 M/s Nitaben Bharatkumar Parekh record reveals that the appellate order was not received at her registered postal address and that she had no means of knowing about the disposal of her appeal. Considering her age, limited technical knowledge, and the short span of delay of 69 days, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. 3.2. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and guided by the judicial principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, we deem it just and proper to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Coming to the merits of the case, the dispute pertains to the addition of ₹4,79,000/- towards unexplained cash deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) noted in his order that no supporting evidence or explanation regarding the source of the said cash deposits was furnished during the appellate proceedings, and accordingly, he upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 4.1. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that only a single notice dated 06.11.2024 was issued by the CIT(A) through electronic mode. As the assessee was not operating any e-mail ID and was unaware of the proceedings, no compliance could be made. It was further submitted that even her Authorised Representative did not communicate the pendency of the matter to her. In such circumstances, there was no deliberate default on Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 731/SRT/2025 5 M/s Nitaben Bharatkumar Parekh the part of the assessee but only an inadvertent lapse arising out of lack of communication. 4.2. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the principle of natural justice demands that the assessee be afforded one more opportunity to present her case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for de novo adjudication after considering the submissions and evidences, if any, furnished by the assessee. The CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard and shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The relevant ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 5. In the result, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat; Dated: 08/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. (on Tour) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 731/SRT/2025 6 M/s Nitaben Bharatkumar Parekh BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "