Rashmi Hitesh Anandani Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Limited Scrutiny Breach & Explained Cash Deposits – Addition Deleted
The ITAT condoned a minor delay of 13 days in filing the appeal due to genuine reasons including the demise of the assessee’s father and procedural delays. On merits, the case involved addition under section 69 for alleged unexplained cash deposits, including during the demonetization period.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded jurisdiction by examining total cash deposits despite the case being selected for limited scrutiny only for demonetization deposits. Further, based on cash flow analysis, withdrawals, and opening cash balance, the assessee had sufficient cash in hand to explain the deposits. Since cash balance never turned negative and was supported by bank records, the addition was held unjustified.
Accordingly, the addition of ₹8.22 lakh was deleted and the appeal was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 26.03.2025 framed by Addl/JCIT (A)-2, Ahmedabad arising out of Assessment Order dated 15.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
2. Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 13 days. Assessee has filed condonation application explaining the reasons which led to delay and the relevant portion reads as follows :
C. Reasons for delay in filing an appeal within stipulated timelines:
1. Demise of Appellant’s father:
The appellant’s father was admitted to the hospital in May 2025 due to a serious medical condition, and the appellant was fully engaged in attending to his care during this critical period. As a result, the appellant was unable to focus on the preparation and filing of the appeal.
Unfortunately, on 03/ 06/ 2025, the appellant’s father passed away and the appellant had to attend to various personal, family, and ceremonial obligations. These circumstances further contributed to the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal.
2. Exchange of Files:
The appellant submits that time has passed in process of compiling and collecting details and information as requested by the new tax consultant. Once the same has been complied and collected, appellant submitted the same to the tax consultant. Hence, a delay has crept into filing of the present appeal.
However, in this entire process, precious time to file an appeal was unfortunately lost and a delay of about 13 days has crept into the matter. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is purely unintentional.”
3. Considering the above reasons, I find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the 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 13 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
