Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 20006 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
21-03-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Judgement Text
" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6329/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2017-18 Nayab Siddiqui R.N. 704, Lakhpati Bhavan, Dr. Emoses Road, Mahalaxmi Opp. Satrast Masjid, Mumbai – 400011. PAN: CQIPS 8499 H Vs. ITO - 22(2)(1), Piramal Chamber, Parel, Maharashtra-400012. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.30,00,000/-u/s 69 treating the same as source of income for purchase of property and added to the income of the assessee. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.45,90,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) treating the same as difference between the Stamp Duty Value and purchase value and added to the income of the assessee. 3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the income tax act. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the income tax act. ITA No. 6329/Mum/2024 Nayab Siddiqui A.Y. 2017-18 2 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the income tax act. 6. The Ld CIT(A) erred in charging interest 234A,234B and 234C of the act. 7. The Appellant craves liberty to add, amend, and alter and / or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,41,255/- was filed on 25.03.2018. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021 on the basis of information received that assessee has purchased an immovable property on 29.04.2016 for a consideration of Rs. 30 lakh whereas the Stamp Value Authority has determined the value of property at Rs. 75,90,000/-. Accordingly, the AO has added an amount of Rs. 45,90,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit and dismissed the same on the ground that there was a delay of 50 days in filing of the appeal. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel filed an affidavit dated 20.02.2025 by which it is submitted that due to chronic sickness of the mother of the assessee there was delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay without any valid reason and requested to provide opportunity to the assessee at the level of First Appellate Authority for deciding the case of the assessee on merit ITA No. 6329/Mum/2024 Nayab Siddiqui A.Y. 2017-18 3 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. It is noticed that before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has categorically reported in Form No. 35 that there was a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal because of sickness of his mother of the assessee as the assessee engaged in getting her treatment from doctors. The ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the marginal delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the matter on merit. We find that ld. CIT(A) has not considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987 dated 19.12.1987 properly wherein held that sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted with a view to do even handed justice on merit in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merit. 6. Looking to the above facts and findings, we restore the case of the assessee to the file of the First Appellate Authority for deciding on merit as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to say that due opportunity should be given to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 21.03.2025 Biswajit, Sr. P.S. ITA No. 6329/Mum/2024 Nayab Siddiqui A.Y. 2017-18 4 Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent: 3. The CIT, 4. The DR //True Copy// [ By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai "
Mehul