POOJA VIJAY DEVNANI,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI

ITA 7139/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Pooja Vijay Devnani against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which affirmed the addition of Rs.1,68,42,693 as income from business for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2016-17. The appeals were consolidated due to identical facts and issues. The primary contention was the procedural delay in filing the appeals, which the assessee attributed to her retirement from business and reliance on a tax consultant, leading to her unawareness of the need to file within the prescribed time. The court found the reasons for the delay satisfactory and remanded the case for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present her case with relevant submissions and documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 836696 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A DHYANI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIRUDH DAVE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.7138 AND 7139/M/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2016-17 Pooja Vijay Devnani, Flat No.11, BLDG 8B 3rd Floor, Navjivan Society, Mumbai Central, H.O. Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400008, MUMBAI. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400012, MUMBAI. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AELPD 5570 K Present for: Assessee by : Shri Anirudh Dave - CA Revenue by : Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.) Date of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Bench These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.7138 and 7139/M/2025 Pooja Vijay Devnani 2 Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2016-17. 2. These appeals under consideration are having involved almost identical facts and issues and therefore for the sake of brevity, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order by taking into consideration ITA No.7138/M/2025 as a lead case and result of the same should be applicable mutatis–mutandis to both the appeals under consideration. 3. Coming to ITA No.7139/M/2025, it is observed that there is a delay of 309 days in filing the same, on which the assessee has claimed that she had carried out her business only upto financial year 2016-17, after which she retired from all business activities and not actively involved in any business operation thereafter. Subsequent to retirement, she bonafidely relied upon her tax consultant for handling income tax compliances, including filing of returns and appellate proceedings in good faith. Due to lack of active involvement and her complete reliance on the consultant, the assessee was not made aware of the necessity and limitation period for filing the present appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal, within the prescribed time. The Email-ID mentioned in E-filing portal i.e., “[e-mail]” was operated by the Ex- accountant, who was associated with the Assessee for more than 15 years and other Email-ID i.e., “[e-mail]” pertains to consultant and hence she was not aware of such adverse order. However, immediately upon becoming aware of the impugned order and the delay, she took prompt steps and Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.7138 and 7139/M/2025 Pooja Vijay Devnani 3 engaged appropriate professional, and filed the present appeal without any delay. The delay occurred was due to circumstances beyond her control, and there was no malafide intention, negligence, or willful disregard of law on her part. The Assessee at last claimed that she had a good and arguable case on merits, and if the delay is not condoned, she shall suffer irreparable loss and prejudice, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue, if the delay is condoned. 4. On the contrary the learned DR refuted the claim of the assessee. 5. Having considering the reasons stated by the assessee for condonation of delay, which are otherwise duly supported with duly sworn affidavit dated 12.06.2026 and it is a mandate of law that the procedural delay, if duly explained, should not defeat the substantial justice and a liberal approach is required to be applied while considering application for condonation of delay, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay, however being an equitable relief subject to the cost of Rs. 11,000/-to be deposited in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from the date of this order. Thus, the delay is accordingly condoned, subject to such cost. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order dated 19.05.2023 u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.1,68,42,693/- being difference Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.7138 and 7139/M/2025 Pooja Vijay Devnani 4 found between bank account and ROI, treating as income from business. 7. The assessee being aggrieved against the aforesaid addition though filed first appeal before the learned Commissioner however despite issuing four (4) notices made, no compliance and/or filed no submissions or documents and therefore the learned Commissioner in the constrained circumstances and having left with no option, decided the appeal filed by the assessee as ex-parte and vide impugned order dated 14.10.2024 dismissed the same affirming the aforesaid addition. The assessee in response to the query “as to why he has not made compliance during the appellate proceeding before the learned Commissioner” replied the same as contended for substantiating the delay in filing instant appeal. We further observed that issue involved also remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of relevant submissions and documents, which the assesse admittedly failed to file. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the learned Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say by affording an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from the date of the order by the Assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.7138 and 7139/M/2025 Pooja Vijay Devnani 5 8. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the learned Commissioner for decision afresh, in the above terms. 9. Coming to the ITA No.7139/M/2025, as observed above the facts of this case are also identical to the case of ITA No.7138/M/2025, thus this case is also remanded to the learned Commissioner on the same terms, as directed in ITA No.7138/M/2025. 10. In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER M. Ranganath Vithal Sr. Private Secretary. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "