RATNABAI GIRDHARILAL RAMRKHYA,DHULE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE

ITA 3216/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ratnabai Girdharilal Ramrkhya against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, which confirmed the addition of Rs.73 lakhs as unexplained cash deposit under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee faced a delay of 300 days in filing the appeal due to personal circumstances, including her husband's severe injury from an attack, which she claimed caused mental trauma and prevented her from complying with the statutory deadlines. The ITAT found merit in her explanation, citing precedents that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The case was complicated by the assessee's previous counsel's failure to communicate critical notices, leading to non-compliance and non-representation at earlier stages. The ITAT decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present her case, emphasizing the importance of hearing the matter on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838198 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 25-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC), Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHILPA N C
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET JOSHI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3216/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2014-15 Ratnabai Girdharilal Ramrkhya C.S.No.306, Behind Toll Naka, Nanod Mata Nagar, Dondaicha, Dhule – 425408 Vs. ITO, Dhule PAN: AMHPR9288C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sanket Joshi Department by : Smt Shilpa NC, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 18-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 19-02-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.12.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15. 2. There is a delay of 300 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been mentioned in the condonation application that the assessee is a lady running a tailoring shop and is not aware of using e-mail facility or the income tax portal. Her husband was looking after all her income tax compliances and related matters. On 02.01.2025 her husband was brutally attacked by three unknown persons while he has gone to the Collector’s Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3216/PUN/2025 Office, Dhule for his personal work. Since the attack was very serious in nature and her husband was in a critical condition, he took a considerable time for recovery in the hospital. This incident has caused severe mental trauma to the assessee and her family leaving them in a state of stock and fear. An FIR was also filed in the month of March, 2025 with the Dhule Police Station against the three unknown assailants. Thus, there is a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the statutory period allowed. Relying on various decisions the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate and therefore, should be condoned. 3. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the condonation application filed by the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides on the issue of delay in filing of the appeal and considered the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit of the assessee. 5. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3216/PUN/2025 the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 6. We find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.” 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra), the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 8. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.73 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer being unexplained cash in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 9. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her original return of income on 31.12.2014 declaring taxable income of Rs.3,95,152/-. Information was received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has deposited Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.3216/PUN/2025 cash of Rs.73 lakhs with Dena Bank during the financial year 2013-14. Since the assessee was unable to substantiate the source of cash deposit with documentary proof during the enquiry made by the ITO (I&CI), Nashik, the case of the assessee was reopened as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act and accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.07.2022. However, the assessee did not file any return of income in response to the said notices. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued and served notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. However, there was no proper compliance from the side of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proposed an addition of Rs.73 lakhs to the total income of the assessee and accordingly opportunity was granted. Since the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the submissions made by the assessee explaining the source of deposit of cash of Rs.73 lakhs, he made addition of the same to the total income of the assessee and accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.77,06,352/-. 10. Since the assessee did not make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.3216/PUN/2025 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC were delivered in the e-mail of the erstwhile Counsel and he did not communicate the same to the assessee, therefore, there was no response from the side of the assessee to the various notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He accordingly submitted that the assessee should be given one final opportunity to substantiate her case. 13. The Ld. DR on the other hand referring to the various notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC submitted that despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee did not make any submission, therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC be upheld. 14. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that due to non-substantiation of cash deposit of Rs.73 lakhs made by the assessee in the account maintained with Dena Bank, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same to the total income of the assessee. We find before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC there was non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite five opportunities granted for which he dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the notices sent to the Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.3216/PUN/2025 assessee were delivered to the e-mail of the previous consultant who neither informed the assessee nor make any submission for which there was non- representation before the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is also his submission that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 19th February, 2026 GCVSR Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.3216/PUN/2025 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 18.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 18.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Office Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "