RUBINA RIZWAN THATIYA,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2719/MUM/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Rubina Rizwan Thatiya against the order of the CIT(A), Thiruvanatpuram, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 9,48,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to cash payments for a credit card bill. The Tribunal noted the absence of proper representation for the assessee at the CIT(A) level and acknowledged the procedural delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, prioritizing substantial justice, condoned the delay and restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668724 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Land Acquisition Collector v/s MSD Katiji & others 1987 AIR 1353 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAPRAKASH SINGH

Judgement Text

" |आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 2719/MUM/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rubina Rizwan Thatiya 32, Aashiyana, 1st Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai- 400050 v/s. बिाम ITO, Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ADPPT2093N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR.) स िवाई की िारीख / Date of Hearing 17.06.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN [J.M.]:- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thiruvanatpuram [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 21.05.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2719/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 Rubina Rizwan Thatiya “1. The delay in filing of present appeal may kindly be condoned as the appellant has prevented by sufficient cause and hence not present the appeal on time. 2. The order dated 21/05/2024 bearing No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1065035736[1] passed by the Honourable CIT[Appeal], ADDL/JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram, is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable C.I.T.(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,48,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 being unexplained money in respect of cash payment made for credit card bill payment.” 3. At the very outset, I notice that there is a delay in filing the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay. Whereas, on the contrary, Ld. DR has contested the said application and requested to reject the application for seeking condonation of delay. 4. After having heard the counsels for both the parties and considering the entire factual position as explained before us, and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector v/s MSD Katiji & others 1987 AIR 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of the non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In my view, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance, hence considering the explanation put forth by the assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay, which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression ‘sufficient cause’. Liberally, I am P a g e | 3 ITA No. 2719/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 Rubina Rizwan Thatiya inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is admitted to be heard on the merits. 5. I notice that no proper representation was put forth by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). As per the records, I observe that additions on account of the fact that the assessee had made large cash payments amounting to Rs. 9,48,000/- made for credit card purchase. The only arguments taken by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings is by submitting that the source of cash deposit is drawing of Rs. 15,44,239/- from the capital account. However, the fact could not be substantiated, and for which, the assessee seeks more opportunities. 6. Be that as it may, considering the interest of justice and the facts of the present case, I feel that the issues between the parties are to be decided on merits. Therefore, keeping in view the said principles, the present appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings. 7. Before parting, I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter back to file Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2719/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 Rubina Rizwan Thatiya expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP GOSAIN (न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 24.06.2025 अननक ेत स ुंह र जपूत/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. "