NIPA NISHITHBHAI PARIKH(EARLIER KNOWN AS NIPA K. MEHTA),AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(10), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1893/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Nipa Nishithbhai Park against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed her appeal for delay and sustained an addition of Rs.43,49,650 to her income for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was based on unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts. The Tribunal found that the accounts in question did not belong to the assessee, and thus the addition was unjustified. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of the delay in filing the appeal, which was initially not condoned by the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312578 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATEEK SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: PAMIL H. SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1893/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year :2017-18 Nipa Nishithbhai Park Earlier Known As Nipa Kiritkumar Mehta A-96, Namrata Tenement Nr.Paras Nagar Bug Stop Isanpur, Ahmedabad 382 443 PAN : AOXPM 5496 B Vs ITO, Ward-3(2)(10) Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Pamil H. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Prateek sharma, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04/02/2045 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29 /04/2025 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.9.2024 pertaining to Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are as under: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in dismissing the appeal outright denying condonation of delay without considering the facts on records and without considering evidences produced during the course of hearing. ITA No.1893/Ahd/2024 2 2. learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in sustaining addition u/s.69 of Rs.43,49,650/-, on account of cash deposit and credit entries in bank. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in confirming the applicability of provisions of section 115 BBE of the income tax act. 3. A perusal of the above grounds reveal that the sole issue involved in the present appeal relates to the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in her bank account, source of which remained unexplained, to the tune of Rs.43,49,650/-. 4. The assessment order notes the assessee to have filed return of income for the impugned year declaring total income of Rs.2,16,960/- showing income from the profits and gains from business and profession and income from other sources .Cash to the tune of Rs.43,49,650/- was found deposited in the bank account maintained with (i) Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-op Bank., Pankornaka Branch, Ahmedabad, and (ii) Kalupur Commercial Co-op Bank Ltd., Khokhara Branch, Ahmedabad. Before the AO, the assessee remained non-compliant and therefore, in the absence of any explanation, the entire cash deposited in the two bank accounts was added to her income under section 69A of the Act. The assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A), who noted that the appeal of the assessee was delayed by 231 days and no plausible explanation was given by the assessee for the delay, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by not condoning the delay. ITA No.1893/Ahd/2024 3 5. Before us, the ld.counsel of the assessee contended that the action of the ld.CIT(A) in not condoning the delay was grossly unjustified for two reasons viz. (i) the assessee had adduced sufficient cause before the ld.CIT(A) who were not even examined by him and summarily dismissed as not plausible, and (ii) the entire addition has been made in the case of the assessee on account of cash deposits in the bank account, which bank accounts are not of the assessee. 6. The above fact was stated before the “SMC” Bench during the course of hearing conducted on 17.12.2024 when the Bench directed the Revenue to produce the assessment record and produce copies of the bank statements of the two banks in which the AO had noted cash deposited pertaining to the assessee i.e. Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-op Bank (“AMCB”), Pankornaka Branch, Ahmedabad, and the Kalupur Commercial Co-op Bank (“KCCB” for short), Kokhara Branch, Ahmedabad. The contents of the order-sheet entry are reproduced hereunder: “The Revenue is directed to produce assessment records as mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of the Assessment Order. The Revenue is also directed to produce copies of bank statement of following banks for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017:- 1) The Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-op Bank, Pankornaka Branch, Ahmedabad. 2) The Kalupur Commercial Co-op Bank, Khokhara Branch, Ahmedabad. 7. On the next date of hearing i.e. 4-2-2025, the ld.DR fairly submitted that, on going through the assessment record, it is revealed that the cash deposited in the bank accounts noted by ITA No.1893/Ahd/2024 4 the AO has nothing to do with the assessee, as the bank account with the “AMCB” is in the name of M/s.Anand Pharma Distributors which contained the entire cash deposit of Rs.43,49,650/- and belonged to the partnership firm of several partners whose names were reflected in the bank statement, copy of which was furnished before us. As for the other bank account i.e. the “KCCB” it was stated to be in the name of the assessee but was closed on 29.3.2013. The contents of the submissions made by the ld.DR admitting of the above facts are hereunder: “Cash Deposit in Bank account The Ld. Bench has called upon the Assessment Record to verify the bank accounts on the basis of which addition has been made by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act. On going through Assessment record following bank account details have emerged: 1. Bank Account No 066013304000005 maintained with The Ahmedabad Mercantile Coop Bank Ltd : This bank account is in the name of M/s Anand Pharma Distributors in which there is cash deposit of Rs 43,49,650/- post demonetisation (copy of bank statement of FY 2016-17 enclosed as Annexure A) 2. Bank Account No 00210109912 maintained with The Kalupur Comm. Co-op Bank Ltd : This bank account is in the name of Mrs Nipa Nishith Parikh which was closed on 29.03.2013 (copy of bank statement enclosed as Annexure B).” 8. The copy of the bank statement was filed before us. 9. In light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) was grossly unjustified in not condoning the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal. ITA No.1893/Ahd/2024 5 As is evident from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee had explained the delay as being on account of all communication from the department being addressed to the email address of the chartered accountant of the assessee, which was not communicated to the assessee. 11. The Ld.CIT(A) has not found the facts stated by the assessee to be false. Therefore the delay surely could not be attributed to any laxity on the part of the assessee, but was for reasons beyond his control. Further, as is evident from the assessment records and submissions placed before us, the alleged cash deposits, on the basis of which the addition of Rs.43,49,650/- was made under Section 69A of the Act, did not pertain to the assessee at all. It is an admitted fact, as recorded in writing by the Departmental Representative, that the bank account maintained with Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-operative Bank was in the name of M/s. Anand Pharma Distributors, a partnership firm, and not in the name of the assessee. Similarly, the bank account maintained with Kalupur Commercial Co- operative Bank was in the name of Mrs. Nipa Nishith Parikh and had already been closed on 29.03.2013, much prior to the relevant assessment year. Thus, in view of these undisputed and admitted facts, the very basis of the addition under Section 69A falls flat. 12. In the light of the aforestated fact undoubtedly not condoning the delay would result in gross injustice to the assessee, confirming addition to income and asking the assessee ITA No.1893/Ahd/2024 6 to cough up taxes thereon, which admittedly does not belong to the assessee. 13. Therefore considering that the assessee had adduced sufficient cause for the delay and not condoning it would result in gross injustice being caused to the assessee, we hold the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in not condoning the delay as highly unjustified and hold it to be a fit case for condoning delay. Further noting the admitted fact that the cash found deposited was not in the bank account of the assessee, I hold, that the addition of Rs.43,49,650/- is unsustainable in law and on facts, and is therefore liable to be deleted. Consequently, the impugned addition is deleted and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 29th April, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 29/04/2025 vk* "