HARISHCHANDRA LAXMAN DONGRE,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER MUM-W-(221)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3582/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Harishchandra Laxman Dongre against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) solely on the grounds of limitation without considering the merits of the case. The assessee, a salaried employee, had his income and subsequent tax assessments disputed, including an alleged underreporting of his salary and issues related to capital gains from property transactions. The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied adequate opportunity during both the assessment and appellate proceedings and thus decided to remand the case for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714677 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV G BRAHME
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Salary income; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No 3582/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Harishchandra Laxman Dongre, 2nd Floor, Pitru Chhaya, Govandi Station Road, Sanghavi Estate, Mumbai-400 088 PAN : ANOPD3687R Income-tax Officer, Mum-W- 2(21)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-400 051 APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sanjiv G Brahme, CA Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR Date of hearing : 04/08/2025 Date of pronouncement : 06/08/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assesse filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘the Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] for A.Y. 2018-19, date of order 20/03/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, [in short, “the Ld. AO”] passed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 07/02/2024. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA 3582/Mum /2025 Harishchandra Laxman Dongre 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment as well as the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) were both ex parte, and the assessee was unable to furnish the requisite documents before either authority. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 66, which has been taken on record. 3. The Ld. AR further contended that the assessee is a salaried employee working with M/s. Focus Fitness Private Limited, earning a salary of Rs.2,63,730/-, on which tax of Rs.912/- was deducted at source. The assessee had not filed his return of income. Pursuant to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessment was completed. While completing the assessment, the Ld. AO considered the assessee’s salary income at Rs.5,46,630/-, which is nearly double the actual salary earned, without bringing any corroborative evidence on record to support such estimation. 4. It was also submitted that the assessee had purchased a property located at MIDC, Khairane, Navi Mumbai, for a consideration of Rs.36,33,000/- on 27/04/2017, against a stamp duty valuation of Rs.35,38,000/-. Considering the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.21,22,703/-, the resultant capital gain was Rs.15,10,297/-, which was claimed as exempt, as the assessee had invested in a new residential flat. However, the assessee was unable to submit the relevant documentary evidence before the authorities below. 5. Before us, the assessee has filed additional evidence which, in our view, is material and relevant to the adjudication of the issues involved in the present Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA 3582/Mum /2025 Harishchandra Laxman Dongre appeal. It is also noted that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 186 days. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation under section 249(2) of the Act, without dealing with the merits of the case. 6. In our considered opinion, while there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal ought not to have been dismissed without considering the reasons for the delay and without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was denied adequate opportunity both during the assessment as well as in the appellate proceedings. The Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection to the submissions made by the Ld. AR. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the assessee’s request for condonation of delay of 186 days in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to furnish all relevant documents, including those submitted before us as additional evidence, before the Ld. CIT(A) for proper appreciation of facts. 7. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as to not prejudice the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing a fresh appellate order. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and fully co-operative in the remand proceedings to enable early disposal of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA 3582/Mum /2025 Harishchandra Laxman Dongre 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No. 3582/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th day of August 2025. Sd/- sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 06/08/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0014 CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "