MR. REVATI NARAYAN JANGAM,MUMBAI V. ITO-42(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 8108/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Smt. Revati Narayan Jangam against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2019-20. The primary issue in these appeals was the dismissal of the assessee's appeals in limine due to delay. The Income Tax Officer had previously completed the assessments ex-parte and made additions to the assessee's income based on non-participation in the assessment proceedings. The tribunal found that the assessee was not properly represented due to the mishandling by the erstwhile Authorized Representative, which led to the delay in filing appeals. The tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the First Appellate Authority to allow the assessee to explain the delay and the source of investment in debentures.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841789 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANNAVARAN KOSURI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIK SHINDE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. Assessment Years ITA No. 8107/Mum/2025 2016-17 ITA No. 8108/Mum/2025 2016-17 ITA No. 8109/Mum/2025 2016-17 ITA No. 8111/Mum/2025 2019-20 ITA No. 8112/Mum/2025 2019-20 Smt. Revati Narayan Jangam, C/506 Shree Complex, Plot No. 106/112, Sector -14, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai - 410210 Vs. Income Tax Officer-42(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. APIPJ 4676E Appellant by : Shri Pratik Shinde Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: Captioned appeals by the same assessee arise out of separate orders passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi pertaining to Assessment Years (A.Y) 2016-17 and 2019-20. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.8107 /Mum/2025 Smt. Revati Narayn Jangam 2. ITA No. 8107/Mum/2025 arises out of quantum proceeding relating to AY 2016-17. Whereas ITA No. 8102/Mum/2025 and ITA No 8108 and 8109/Mum/2025 respectively are appeals against imposition of penalty under section (u/s.) 271F and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) for AY 2016-17. ITA Nos. 8111/Mum/2025 and 8112/Mum/2025 respectively arise out of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC (1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act for AY 2019-20. However, the basic common grievance of the assessee in all these appeals is against dismissal of appeals in limine on account of delay. 3. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. 4. Briefly the facts are, based on information received that the assessee had purchased debentures of Rs.50,00,000/- in Financial Year 2015-16, whereas she did not file return of income, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. The AO has alleged that the assessee neither responded to number of statutory notices issued to her nor did participate in the assessment proceeding nor furnished the details to explain the source of investment in debentures. Thus, ultimately, AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte to the best of his judgment. While doing so, he added back the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the income of the assessee. Further, the AO initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under various provisions of the Act. Similarly, for AY 2019-20 also assessment was completed ex-parte to the best of judgment of AO, making addition Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.8107 /Mum/2025 Smt. Revati Narayn Jangam of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of purchase of debentures. Based on such addition penalty u/s. 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) of the Act were imposed. 5. Against the aforesaid orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before learned First Appellate Authority. However, as noted by learned First Appellate Authority, appeals were delayed by more than two months. While explaining the delay, assessee stated, the reasons of “inadvertent mistake”. However, not being satisfied with reasons shown, learned First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals on ground of delay without deciding them on merit. 6. Before us, it is the say of the assessee that due to improper handling of the matter by erstwhile Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee could not be properly represented either before the AO or before learned First Appellate Authority. He submitted, even the concerned AR did not furnish a proper submission explaining the cause of delay. He submitted, due to ex-parte completion of assessment and dismissal of appeals in limine, the assessee was prevented from explaining the source of investment in debentures through supporting evidence. He submitted, given an opportunity, assessee would explain the cause of delay and also the source of investment. 7. Having gone through the factual matrix and submissions of the parties, we are of the view that interest of justice would be better served, in case the assessee gets an opportunity to properly explain the cause of delay in filing the appeals before learned First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.8107 /Mum/2025 Smt. Revati Narayn Jangam impugned orders of learned First Appellate Authority and restore the matters back to him. It will be open to the assessee to furnish proper explanation before the learned First Appellate Authority explaining the cause of delay in filing the appeals. 8. Considering the fact that delay is not inordinate and the additions made were on account of non-participation of the assessee in the assessment proceeding, we expect the learned First Appellate Authority to take a liberal view in the matter of condonation of delay and decide the appeals on merit after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 25/02/2026 Aks/- Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.8107 /Mum/2025 Smt. Revati Narayn Jangam Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "