SULBHA CHAKRAPANI SARVADE,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, SANGLI

ITA 1619/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sulbha Chakrapani Sarvade, who appealed against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which arose from an assessment order under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially delayed due to personal and technical issues, including health problems and disputes with her son, who managed her email and IT affairs. The primary contention in the appeal was the addition of Rs.8,38,85,410 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, attributed to cash deposits in her bank accounts. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given a fair opportunity to present her case and that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the records before making the best judgment assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826749 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT BOBDE
• Assessee Lawyers: UMESH MALI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1619/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sulbha Chakrapani Sarvade, Flat No.4, Hariprasad Apartments, Faujdar Galli Khan Bhag, Sangli-416416, Maharashtra PAN : BGYPS5417A Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Sangli Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 14.11.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of Assessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 157 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which gave rise to delay and the contents of said Affidavit reads as under: “3. Currently I am of 58 years age. I am suffering from many health issues and I am not technology friendly hence for compliance and mail matter I was fully dependent on my Son While registration of my PAN on Income tax portal my consultant had given my Son's email address [e-mail] so all Emails from Income Appellant by : Shri Umesh Mali Respondent by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 05.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 08.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1619/PUN/2025 Sulbha Chakrapani Sarvade 2 Tax Department got delivered on that email address. Meanwhile there were disputes between me and my Son and My Son didn't Informed me about these notices meanwhile there was dispute between me and my that Tax consultant hence I gave given my case to one Chartered accountant After checking Income Tax E filing account my CA came to know about all these notices and assessment orders. Due to all These Problems There is delay in filing appeal 68 days. Due to above mentioned facts there is delay in filing appeal before Hon. ITAT 4. I had no intention to delay the filing of the appeal. No dilatory tactics were practiced by me. My explanation in support of the condonation of delay prayer does not smack of any maladies. The delay is also not for the reason to gain time. There is no negligence on my part during the whole process. There being sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the tribunal in time, I pray the hon'ble members of the bench to condone the delay occurred in the filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of law.” 3. Having gone through the reasons, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 157 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “GROUNDS OF APPEAL (Hon. ITAT) (Without prejudice to each other) 1) GROUND No. 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs.8,38,85,410/- u/s.69A without considering the nature of business of the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1619/PUN/2025 Sulbha Chakrapani Sarvade 3 1.1) The Appellant is engaged in the trading of petrol, diesel, she is assessed to Income tax in his Individual status. She was liable to tax audit U/s 44 AB of Income Tax Act 1961. Being honest taxpayer she has Got books of accounts audited and uploaded on 17/10/2018 vide ack No. 337561701171018 by declaring turnover of Rs.12,49,34,185/- and Net profit of Rs.7,13,024/-. Due to lack of knowledge of income tax she appointed one accountant to look into her accounting and taxation matters. Due to mistake of my accountant she failed to file return of income 1.2) Learned A.O. has made an addition of Rs.8,38,85,410/-being unexplained money u/s 69A of The Income Tax Act 1961. As per following details Cash deposit in bank of Maharashtra Rs.7,88,17,880/-, Cash deposit in Bharti sahakari Bank Ltd Rs. 50,67,430/- Prayer The Assessee prays that learned AO failed to give Natural justice to the case and made addition of Rs.8,38,85,410/-The order passed needs to be quashed. 2) GROUND No. 2- The appellant craves leave to add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of Appeal.” 5. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is running a Petrol Pump and books of account are duly maintained and are audited. In the past also, regular return of income have been furnished along with Audit Report. However, for the year under consideration even though the Tax Audit Report was uploaded on 17.10.2018, return of income could not be filed due to failure on the part of the Accountant. He submitted that even the appeal filed before ld.CIT(A) was barred by limitation by 173 days due to which appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. He only prayed that since the assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer and file necessary details the issue may be remitted back to place the details of the sales turnover of the assessee’s business concern namely Samarpit Petrol Pump for the Financial Year 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1619/PUN/2025 Sulbha Chakrapani Sarvade 4 6. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2018- 19. Ld. Assessing Officer based on the information about cash deposit and cash withdrawal totalling to ₹8,39,77,510 and on observing that assessee has not furnished the return of income, issued notice u/s.148 of the Act but the assessee failed to make any compliance resulting into the passing of the best Judgment assessment by the Assessing Officer making addition u/s.69A of the Act for unexplained money at ₹8,38,85,410. We further observe that aggrieved with the addition made by the Assessing Officer assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 14.10.2023 and there was delay of 173 days. Reasons for delay were submitted but thereafter on the date of hearing assessee could not appear resulting into dismissal of the appeal. 8. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the Audited financials of sole proprietary concern M/s. Samarpit Petrol Pump for F.Y. 2017-18 wherein the gross turnover is stated at Rs.12.49 crore and the business activity of the assessee is of running a Petrol Pump. It is claimed before us that the source of cash deposits is from the cash sales made at the Petrol Pump and even the Audit Report was also uploaded on the income-tax portal on 17.10.2018 and the same was very much available for examination by the Assessing Officer. This fact indicates that ld. Assessing Officer has not examined the records properly prior to passing of the best Judgment, but Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1619/PUN/2025 Sulbha Chakrapani Sarvade 5 inspite of the fact that assessee has assessee has failed to file the return of income but ld. Assessing Officer ought to have taken note of the Tax Audit Report and the financial statements attached thereto. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the issues raised on merits deserves to be restored to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication which shall be carried out after examining the Audited financial statements and other details to be furnished by the assessee in order to explain the source of cash deposit and cash withdrawal referred by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Needless to mention that ld. JAO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the set aside proceedings. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 08th day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 08th January, 2026. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1619/PUN/2025 Sulbha Chakrapani Sarvade 6 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "