RINOO,PIMPRI- CHINCHWAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

ITA 918/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves RINOO, an authorized agent of Allahabad Bank, who faced an unexpected tax demand due to unexplained money additions from cash deposits facilitated during the demonetization period. The assessee was unaware of the assessment proceedings under section 147 and only discovered the assessment order in July 2020, leading to a significant delay in filing an appeal. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal found sufficient cause to condone the delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision during the COVID-19 pandemic, and restored the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717029 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship vs Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Nitesh Kumar Goyal vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Sant Kabir Mahasabha vs The CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh, D. Saibaba vs Bar Council of India, Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, Stride Multitrade (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 13(2)(2), Shri Gandhiraj Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs ITO, Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANNAVARAMKOSURI
• Assessee Lawyers: TANMAY PHADKE
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 918/MUM/2025 (AY: 2017-18) (Physical hearing) RINOO Gate No. 1376, Rajgad Park, 6 More Wasti, Chikhali, Maharashtra – 411062. [PAN: AEMPU1860Q] Vs Income Tax Officer Ashar IT Park, Thane (West), Maharashtra – 400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Mr. Tanmay Phadke, Advocate Revenue by Shri AnnavaramKosuri, Sr. DR Date of Institution 03.02.2025 Date of hearing 31.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 20.08.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 03.12.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [\"the learned Commissioner (Appeals)] erred in dismissing the appeal on the limitation and without adjudicating on merits. Thus, the delay of 759 days in filing the appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) may be condoned and the matter may be remanded back/restored back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merits. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the law, the addition of Rs. 43,93,000/- as made by the learned assessing officer under Section 69A read with section 115BBE being illegal and untenable in law may be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 918/Mum/2025 RINOO 2 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the law, the addition of Rs. 17,76,258/- as made by the learned assessing officer being illegal and untenable in law may be quashed.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessment was completed under section 144 on 09.12.2029. The assessee was not aware about the assessment proceeding initiated under section 147. When the assessee came to know about passing the assessment order filed appeal before ld CIT(A). The ld AR of the assessee fairly submits that there was delay of 759 days in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has already filed her affidavit in explaining the cause of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is an authorised agent of Allahabad Bank which is now merged with Indian Bank. The assessee was specifically allowed a code for his agency and allotted cash deposit account. During demonetization period, the assessee deposited facilitated for deposit of certain currency note of 500 and 1000. As per scheme of Bank, the assessee used to earned commission on extending facilities to the customer of bank in remote area. The commission earned by assessee was below the taxable limit. Thus, no return of income was filed. The assessee came to know about passing of assessment order on in July 2020, when the assessee filed return of income for AY 2019-20. When the consultant of assessee opened the Income Tax Portal for filing said return for AY 2019-20 realised that entire cash deposit which was deposited on behalf of various customers was added as unexplained money. The notice Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 918/Mum/2025 RINOO 3 issued by assessing officer was not received by the assessee. The assessee was surprised and shattered about knowing such tax demand. The assessee when consulted with her consultant he shows his inability to file appeal and was asked to file appeal in Mumbai as assessment order is passed by assessing officer in Thane. When the assessee came to know about the demand and assessment order, it was severe Covid-19 pandemic period. The appeal was filed before ld. CIT(A) on 08.02.2022. Though, the entire period from the date of knowledge of assessment order i.e. July 2020 to Feb 2022 was condoned by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 03 of 2020. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of limine without condoning the delay in filing appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if his case is heard on merit. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without issuing any specific show cause notice on the point of delay. The ld. CIT(A) without seeking any explanation on the delay dismissed the appeal in limine. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed that delay in filing appeal may be condoned and matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) or assessing officer for adjudication on merit. To support his submissions, the ld. AR relied upon the following decision:  Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship vs Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) (2024) 160 taxmann.com 629 (Punjab & Haryana)  Nitesh Kumar Goyal vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2025) 173 taxmann.com 979 (Chhattisgarh)  Sant Kabir Mahasabha vs The CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh ITA No. 84/CHD/2023  D. Saibaba vs Bar Council of India (2003) 6 SCC 186 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 918/Mum/2025 RINOO 4  Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022  Stride Multitrade (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 13(2)(2) (2021) 133 taxmann.com 282 (Bombay)  Shri Gandhiraj Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs ITO, ITA No. 898, 899 and 900/Mum/2025  Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs ACIT (2019) 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that assessee is habitual in not attending the proceeding before lower authorities. The delay has not been explained properly. The lower authorities have not decided the matter on merit, thus, in case the bench is of the opinion that the assessee deserve any relief, the matter may be restored to the file of lower authorities. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by ld. AR of the assessee. Firstly, we considering the plea of condonation of delay. The foremost plea of ld. AR of the assessee is not no notice during assessment was served upon the assessee. We find that assessment was completed on 09.12.2019 under section 144. The assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 08.02.2022. Thus, there was delay of 759 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. We find that majority of the time period from the date of knowledge of assessment order till filing of the appeal before ld CIT(A) in February 2022 has already been condoned by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Supra). Even otherwise, we find that assessee has explained all such circumstances leading to non-appearance or non-service Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 918/Mum/2025 RINOO 5 of notice by assessing officer in her affidavit. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) before dismissal of appeal has not issued any specific show cause notice for seeking further submission of assessee on the issue of delay. Considering the fact that assesse is really interested in pursuing her case on merit, therefore, delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) is condoned. Further, considering the fact that assessment was also completed under section 144, therefore, matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer to pass the assessment order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the assessment order, the assessing officer shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance as well as the relevant evidence to substantiate various grounds of appeal. In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 20/08/2025. Sd/- OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated: 20/08/2025 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 918/Mum/2025 RINOO 6 (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "