Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah Vs ACIT (OSD) (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside an addition of ₹10 lakh under Section 69A after finding that the CIT(A) mistakenly treated jewellery sale invoices as purchase invoices. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication, with directions to supply the remand report and consider new evidence in line with natural justice.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, adjudicated an appeal filed by the assessee, Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The dispute centered on an addition of ₹10,00,100 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating the amount as unexplained cash deposits. The ITAT ultimately allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.
Condonation of Delay
At the outset, the ITAT addressed a 32-day delay in filing the appeal. The assessee submitted an affidavit explaining that the delay occurred due to the initial failure of a local tax consultant to file the appeal despite receiving the fee, followed by a delay with a second consultant preoccupied with time-barring scrutiny assessments.
Judicial Precedent on Sufficient Cause
The Tribunal, relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, accepted the explanation. This precedent holds that the expression ‘Sufficient Cause’ in condonation of delay applications must be interpreted liberally to sub-serve the ends of justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that refusing to condone a non-deliberate delay can defeat a meritorious case, while condoning it merely ensures the cause is decided on its merits. Finding no deliberate intention to delay, and noting the assessee’s attempt to file the appeal fee within the due date, the ITAT condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.
