PARUL NILESH MEHTA,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7768/MUM/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Parul Nilesh Mehta against the order of the CIT(A) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which dismissed her appeal due to a delay in filing. The original assessment by the AO under sections 147 read with 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, included a sum of Rs. 2,12,50,000 under section 69A, questioning the genuineness of the source of repayment of a loan. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the reasons for the delay, which was attributed to the health issues of the assessee's Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided an opportunity to the assessee nor considered the affidavit for condonation of delay, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 836721 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH MODY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7768/Mum/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Parul Nilesh Mehta, Flat No. 15, 5th Floor, 23C Sea View Building, 185 Dongersy Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006. PAN : AJUPM6149F vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Satish Mody For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 09-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13-02-2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 28-10-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟), vide order dt. 25-05-2023, wherein the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 2,12,50,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act for the reason that the assessee has Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 7768/Mum/2025 failed to discharge the necessary onus in proving genuineness of the source of repayment of the loan amounting to Rs. 2,12,50,000/- taken during the year under consideration. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal on account of delayed filing and against the said order and findings, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that admittedly there is a delay of 67 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that there was however a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and in this regard, the assessee has explained that the delay has occurred for the reason that the Chartered Accountant handling the matters was not keeping well and facing certain health issues, as a result, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit. However, the Ld.CIT(A) without appreciating the same, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the affidavit filed by the Chartered before the Ld.CIT(A) and it was submitted that the same has also been summarily rejected by the Ld.CIT(A). It was further submitted that the assessee has taken certain legal grounds of appeal and has also sought permission to file additional evidences under Rule 46A before the Ld.CIT(A). However, the same has also not been adjudicated upon besides the fact that there is no finding on the merits of the case. It was accordingly submitted that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR has been heard, who has not raised serious objection against remanding the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 7768/Mum/2025 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As evident from records, it is clear that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without taking into consideration the affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and it is also a fact that before rejecting the appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) did not issue any notice to the assessee and, therefore, necessary opportunity has also not been provided by the Ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to submit additional evidences/documentation and to represent her case diligently. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh as per law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the matter and is at liberty to file necessary explanation / additional documentation as so advised. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13-02-2026 Sd/- Sd/- [SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 13-02-2026 TNMM Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 7768/Mum/2025 Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "