SHEELA LADHANIA,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD 49(2), , KOLKATA

ITA 1140/KOL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sheela Ladhania against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-2018. The primary issue was the belated filing of the appeal, which was condoned by the Tribunal on humanitarian grounds despite the absence of substantial medical evidence directly linking the illness to the delay in filing. The core of the dispute was the AO's addition of Rs. 37 lakhs as undisclosed income, which the assessee claimed was accumulated savings. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee did not substantiate the source of the cash deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 828631 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Kolkata
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT ADHIKARY
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Presumptive income

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य क े समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1140/KOL/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Sheela Ladhania, Flat No.3B, Pachwati Complex, Airport-VIP Road, Kolkata West Bengal-700052 Vs ITO Ward-49(2), Kolkata PAN No. :AAXPL 0311 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Shiv Shankar Sharma, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 12/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The appeal of the assessee has been filed belatedly by 513 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application supported with affidavit which reads as follows :- To The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (I.Τ.Α.Τ.), Kolkata Bench, 225/C, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700020. Reg: SHEELA LADHANIA Address: Flat No.3B, Panchawati Complex, Airport VIP Road, 24 Parganas North-700052 PAN-AAXPL0311L Α.Υ 20017-18 Sub: Condonation of delay in filing appeal- matter regarding. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1140/KOL/2025 2 Sir, Enclosed herewith an Appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi. The said Appellate order was passed by the Ld. NFAC, C.I.T(Appeals) dated 25.10.2023. Although this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal counting the period of 60 days from the aforesaid date of communication of the order but it could not be filed because of personal indisposition and ill health of the petitioner. In spite of my severe and critical illness the appeal petition was sent to my A.R within the limitation period. That even in my sick bed I had tried my level best to contact my A.R and handover the necessary papers for filing appeal but the said A.R did not communicated properly with your assesse. That the A.R did not filed the appeal petition on time but even after knowing my medical condition did not file any condonation petition at the time of filing of appeal petition which was a serious latch from the part of the A.R. That the petitioner is a layman and had to depend upon her A.R but in this particular case my A.R had not properly informed me to comply with the necessary to compliances be Authority(I.T.A.T), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata. made before the Appellate That your petitioner had every sufficient cause for not filing appeal in time but even after trying her best the appeal could not be filed in time due to the fault of the A.R who did not filed the petition in due time and did not also conveyed the message of non-filing of appeal before the Authority to the petitioner. That during the prolonged illness period your petitioner was advised complete bed rest as he was suffering from backache palpitation & insomnia and had heart related problems along with bronchial chest pain. It is therefore, prayed that the delay in filing this appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- SHEELA LADHANIA Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1140/KOL/2025 3 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1140/KOL/2025 4 3. In reply, ld.Sr. DR did not raise serious objection to condone the delay. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1140/KOL/2025 5 4. Considering the claim of the assessee that the assessee is not well, insofar as the assessee is having some medical problems, though I am of the view that the medical report shows that the angioplasty has been done in the case of the assessee on 25.04.2023 whereas the order of the ld. CIT(A) is dated 25.10.2023 and this report has nothing to do with the delay in filing of the appeal, however, considering the humanity and reasonableness, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merits. 5. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.37 lakhs. The AO did not accept the claim of the assessee that the money was the accumulated savings of the assessee. It was submission that the Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the AO. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period was the past savings of the assessee. It was also submission that the provision of Section 69A of the Act requires that the same should not be found recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. It was submission that the assessee is filing her return of income on presumptive basis u/s.44AD of the Act. It was submission that the assessee is not required to maintain the books of accounts. It was submission that the same cannot be said that the amount was not recorded in the books of account of the assessee. It was prayer that the addition may be deleted. 6. In reply, the Ld.Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1140/KOL/2025 6 7. I have considered the rival submissions. It must be mentioned here that the assessee has got no evidence to show that the assessee was holding cash of Rs.37,00,000/- in her personal custody. The Wealth Tax Act which has been abolished on 31/03/2015 requires that if cash in excess of Rs.50,000/- is maintained in hand then wealth tax return is to be filed. Now even assuming this cash was generated after 31/03/2015, the impugned assessment year is 2017-18 i.e. year ending 31/03/2017. That is within the two years the assessee has generated or manage to save Rs.37,00,000/- in cash. 8. A copy of the returns filed by the assessee from assessment years 2016-17 and 2015-16 as found in the paper book shows that for the assessment year 2015-16 the presumptive income shown by the assessee is only Rs.6,47,655/- and for A.Y..2016-17 is Rs.9,59,560/-. This is nowhere near a possible Rs.37,00,000/- holding. The Ld.AR is unable to tell us to even as to what is the actual business of the assessee. The income for the assessment year 2017-18 disclosed is only Rs.11,78,511/- Thus the presumptive income disclosed for all the three years put together is only Rs.26.5 lakhs. Out of this, the deductions under Chapter 6A if reduced would be ever Rs.5.5 lakhs effectively bringing it down to around Rs.21 lakhs. Out of this, if the taxes are removed, it will be another Rs.2 lakhs. Thus, the possible funds available with the assessee is only Rs.20 lakhs. If the drawings are also to be considered, there will no further ground. Thus, clearly this is a case of undisclosed income. The assessee has no source to generate this amount. As the assessee has been unable to prove Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1140/KOL/2025 7 the source of amount of Rs.37 lakhs, I am of the view that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is on right footing. The claim of the assessee that Section 69A of the Act would not apply, does not hold water, insofar as even assuming the books of accounts are there, the computation as made in earlier in connection with three years also shows that the assessee has no source. The requirement of maintaining books is on the assessee. The assessee has not maintained the books. It is for the assessee to explain the addition. It is for the assessee to explain the source of the deposit in the bank which is also not done. This being so, the addition made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands upheld. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 12/01/2026. Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 12/01/2026 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ज फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रयत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "