Jayesh Hirji Savla Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: In the case of Jayesh Hirji Savla vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai), the tribunal addressed a delay in filing an appeal regarding unexplained bank deposits, which had led to an assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The delay was attributed to the assessee’s arrest during the assessment proceedings, which hindered proper representation. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance, leading the assessee to approach the ITAT. The tribunal considered an affidavit submitted by the assessee and noted that there was no intention to benefit from the delay. The ITAT referenced the Supreme Court’s guidelines on condonation of delay, emphasizing a liberal, justice-oriented approach. It highlighted the need to balance technical considerations with substantial justice, ensuring that delays do not unfairly penalize parties, especially when reasonable cause is shown. Citing previous decisions from the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court, the tribunal found sufficient cause for delay and condoned it, remanding the matter for reassessment. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to fair treatment and the importance of addressing delays pragmatically.
Assessee filed the return of income and the assessment was competed u/sec 143(3). Subsequently, the AO has received the information that the assessee has made high value deposits in the bank accounts and were not explained, therefore the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 and in compliance, the assesse has filed the return of income. Further the A.O has issued notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec 142(1) to furnish the details of credit entries appearing in the bank account and there was no reply was filed. Since there was no compliance by the assessee, the AO has invoked the provisions u/sec 144 and relied on the material available on record and made best judgement assessment as the assesse could not substantiate with evidence the credits of high value transactions in bank account and the A.O has treated the amounts as unexplained money u/sec 69A and and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s144.
