Depression & Father’s Death Lead ITAT to Grant Relief; ₹4.16Cr Demonetization Case Sent Back for Fresh Assessment [Read Order]
During the hearing before the ITAT, the assessee’s counsel argued that the delay was not intentional.
![Depression & Father’s Death Lead ITAT to Grant Relief; ₹4.16Cr Demonetization Case Sent Back for Fresh Assessment [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/12/2042916-itat-416cr-demonetization-taxscan.webp "Depression & Father’s Death Lead ITAT to Grant Relief; ₹4.16Cr Demonetization Case Sent Back for Fresh Assessment [Read Order]")
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench has granted relief in a ₹4.16 crore demonetization case, citing mental health struggles and family bereavement as valid reasons for procedural delays. The tribunal directed tax authorities to conduct a fresh assessment, giving the appellant a proper opportunity to present their case.The case began when the Income Tax Officer, Ward...
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench has granted relief in a ₹4.16 crore demonetization case, citing mental health struggles and family bereavement as valid reasons for procedural delays. The tribunal directed tax authorities to conduct a fresh assessment, giving the appellant a proper opportunity to present their case.
The case began when the Income Tax Officer, Ward 49(1), New Delhi, noticed that Sanjay Store had deposited a large sum of cash and cheques in its bank account at SBI, Bali Nagar, during the demonetization period. Since no income tax return was filed under section 139(1), the department issued several notices under section 142(1) requiring the firm to explain the source of these deposits.
When the firm did not respond to these notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144, treating the entire amount of ₹4,16,90,000 as undisclosed income u/s69 of the Income Tax Act.
Know the complete aspects of tax implications of succession, Click here
Sanjay Store, appellant-assessee appealed the assessment before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, but the appeal was dismissed. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal, observing that the assessee had not provided adequate documentary evidence for the delay, which was nearly two years. As a result, the merits of the case were not examined, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.
During the hearing before the ITAT, the assessee’s counsel argued that the delay was not intentional. He explained that Ashok Dhingra, one of the partners, was suffering from serious mental depression due to financial stress, closure of business, and the death of his father, N.L. Dhingra, during the pandemic.
Medical records and the death certificate were submitted as evidence. It was also submitted that the actual delay, after accounting for the period excluded by the Supreme Court’s orders during the pandemic, was only 45 days. The counsel further stated that the firm was unaware of the assessment proceedings as another partner, Gulshan Dhingra, who was handling the matter, did not inform the others.
Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here
The Tribunal, comprising S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar (Judicial Member), considered these submissions and noted that the assessee had not been given a fair opportunity to present its case.
In Conclusion, all the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
