DILIP JAGANNATH SAMANT,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5638/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dilip Jagannath Samant, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal due to a delay in filing. The appellant had previously faced a penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act for underreporting income from a property sale. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the quantum appeal, which was still pending. The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on both the penalty and the quantum of income assessed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789907 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANNAVARAN KOSURI
• Assessee Lawyers: S C AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5638/MUM/2025 7 (A.Y.2017-18) Dilip Jagannath Samant 102A Lavisha CHSL, Opp. National English, Virat Nagar, Vasai (W) Dist. Thane -401303. Vs. I.T.O 41(4)(1) Ward 41 (4)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, B.K.C, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051. \u0001थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAUPS5783L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri S C Agrawal Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR Date of Hearing 18.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 20.08.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows: “Ground No.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal and not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has made an application for condonation of delay as per his application dated 16.12.2024. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA NO. 5638/mum/2025. 1. The quantum appeal of the appellant is not yet decided. Ground No.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, Rs.1261200/-without appreciating the fact that:- 1. The appellant has not misreported / under reported any income. Ground No.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty Rs.1261200/- without appreciating the fact that:- 1. The appellant has sold the room on 26.07.2001 and received the consideration of Rs.320000/- The agreement is registered on 07.12.2016. The A.O. has added Rs.2702000/- (3022000-320000) The appellant has not misreported / under reported any income. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. From the information available on the Insight Portal of the IT department, it was noted by ld. AO that the assessee had entered into a sale transaction of an immovable property for Rs. 3,20,000/- as against the stamp duty value (SDV) of Rs. 30,22,0000/-. On this ground, the case was reopened and assessment completed at Rs. 27,02,000/- vide order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 10.01.2023. Subsequently, penalty u/s. 270A was also levied amounting to Rs. 12,61,200/- vide order dated 29.02.2024. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). As the appeal was filed after a delay of 261 days, the same was dismissed in limine vide order dated 20.08.2025. Aggrieved further, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA NO. 5638/mum/2025. 4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that the quantum appeal is still pending before ld. CIT(A). Under the circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the present appeal by not condoning the delay for which an application for condonation had been filed. He has, therefore, requested for remanding the appeal to ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition. 5. After hearing both the parties, we deem it appropriate to restore the order of ld. CIT(A) back to his file for fresh adjudication alongwith quantum appeal. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in Open Court on 24.11.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (RENU JAUHRI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: Mumbai Date 24.11.2025 Anandi.Nambi/STENO आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\b / The Appellant 2. थ\b / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0011 / CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड\u001b फाईल / Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA NO. 5638/mum/2025. स ािपत ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "