LATABEN TULSHBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1) (5), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

ITA 4435/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Lataben Tulshibhai Patel, who appealed against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13, which added Rs. 40,00,000 as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed this amount was from a cash withdrawal intended for purchasing agricultural land, with its source explained to the Income Tax Officer. The appeal was initially delayed due to the assessee's serious health issues, specifically cancer, which affected her ability to respond to legal proceedings. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the principles of substantial justice, decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 823195 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4435/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2012-13 Lataben Tulshibhai Patel 10-A, Gogate Mansion, P Road, Near Church, Mumbai PAN – ABLPP4842R Vs ITO – 19(1)(5) Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 22.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.12.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 21.12.2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the addition of 40,00,000 made by the Learned Income Tax Officer under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained expenditure, must be deleted in full, as the amount pertains to a cash withdrawal made for the purchase of agricultural land, the legitimate source of which was duly explained to the Learned Income Tax Officer and reiterated in the statement of facts. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 4435/Mum/2025 Lataben Tulshibhai Patel, Mumbai. 2) That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, Your Appellant prays leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of the Appeal. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee either physically or virtually when the case was called repeatedly. From the record we noticed that even on the previous occasions as well the assessee had sought adjournment on one ground or the other and even last opportunity was granted to the assessee vide order dated 30.11.2025 but still nobody appeared today i.e 22.12.2025. On the other hand, Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments, therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte. 3. At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 495 days in filing present appeal and in this regard assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay is on the record. The contentions of which is reproduced herein below: I, Lataben Tulsibhal Patel, residing at 10-A Gogate Mansion VP Road Near Church, Mumbai-400004, hereby submit this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order passed by The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 21.12.2023 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The said order was received by me on 22-12-2023. As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the appeal was required to be filed on or before 20.02.2024. However, due to the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 4435/Mum/2025 Lataben Tulshibhai Patel, Mumbai. following bona fide reasons, there has been a delay of 499 days in filing the appeal: Reasons for Delay: The Appellant is a senior citizen aged 74 years and has been suffering from a prolonged and serious medical condition, namely cancer, for the past few years. The Appellant has been undergoing continuous treatment and has experienced severe physical and emotional distress during this period. Due to her deteriorating health, the Appellant was not in a position to attend to regular affairs, including receiving or responding to notices and communications from the Income Tax Department. Further, owing to her fragile medical condition, the Appellant was unaware of the consequences arising from non-compliance with the statutory proceedings. It was only when a close relative of the Appellant reviewed the pending communications from the Income Tax Department that the Appellant was advised to take immediate steps to file an appeal against the order passed under Section 250 of the Act. With the assistance of the said relative, the Appellant initiated the process of filing the appeal. However, by that time, a considerable delay had already occurred. The delay, therefore, is neither deliberate nor due to negligence, but was solely on account of the Appellant's serious health condition and her inability to comprehend and act upon the legal Implications in a timely manner. The Appellant humbly prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly take a compassionate and lenient view of the facts and circumstances of the case and condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice. The Appellant assures this Hon'ble Tribunal that there was no intention to disregard the law and that all further proceedings will be pursued diligently. Prayer: In view of the above, the Appellant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: 1. Condone the delay in filing the appeal; and Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 4435/Mum/2025 Lataben Tulshibhai Patel, Mumbai. 2. Admit the appeal for hearing on merits, in the interest of justice. 3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same. 4. After having heard Ld. DR on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained in the application and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and taking sympathetic view that assessee in his application is suffering from cancer and construing the expression \"sufficient cause\" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 4435/Mum/2025 Lataben Tulshibhai Patel, Mumbai. 5. From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 6. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that assessee was ex-parte and could not substantiate its grounds raised in the appeal and could not put effective representation. Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case and substantiate the grounds raised by him before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 7. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 4435/Mum/2025 Lataben Tulshibhai Patel, Mumbai. on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 8. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/12/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 22/12/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "