PRASAD NARAYAN DHULAP,KAMOTHE PANVEL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(2)(1), VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 4120/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Prasad Narayan Dhulap, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. The original assessment for AY 2011-12 was reopened based on information regarding the purchase of immovable property, leading to an addition of Rs. 31,41,900 as unexplained investment under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contested the mechanical issuance of notice under section 148 and the subsequent additions made to his income. The Tribunal found the delay in filing the appeal to be genuine and bonafide, considering the appellant's age and health at the time, and thus decided to remand the case for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713058 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAGIRATH RAMAWAT
• Assessee Lawyers: ANURADHA K. JETHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Unexplained investment
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4120/MUM/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2011-12) Prasad Narayan Dhulap Flat No. A/801, Satyam Arcade Plot No. 26 Sector 21 Kamothe, Panvel 410209 v/s. बिधम Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai IT Office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AXTPD5548C Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Ms. Anuradha K. Jethi रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 28.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 08/06/2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal filed the appellant on the grounds of non-compliance without adjudicating the appeal on merits. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No. 4120/Mum/2025 AY 2011-12 Prasad Narayan Dhulap 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that notice u/s 148 has been issued in a mechanical manner without any evidence that the appellant had made any investment in the immovable property, where he was only a second holder, his mother being the first holder. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that appellant was around 19 years of age and pursuing his studies in the financial year relevant to AY 2011-12 and had no taxable income. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that addition of entire investment of Rs.31,41,900/- made u/s 69A of Income Tax Act in the hands of the appellant was unjustified. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the addition of Rs.1,60,000/- is made by the assessing officer only on surmise and guess work that the basic exemption limit of Rs.1,60,000/- is consumed by the appellant. The appellant seeks leave to add, modify or delete any grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for AY 2011-12. On the basis of information available with the department regarding purchase of immovable property, the case was reopened and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 28.03.2018. As there was no compliance by the assessee to various notices issued by Ld. AO, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147, after adding Rs. 31,41,900/- u/s. 69A of the Act, being unexplained investment in the immovable property. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As no compliance was made to various notices issued by Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed ex-parte vide order dated 08.06.2023. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No. 4120/Mum/2025 AY 2011-12 Prasad Narayan Dhulap 4. At the outset it is noticed that the appeal is delayed by 655 days. An affidavit or condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee explaining the circumstances resulting in the inordinate delay. Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee was around 19 years of age at the relevant time and could not understand and attend to the tax proceedings properly. He has also explained in the affidavit that he had engaged a counsel for attending to the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. However, he could not take requisite action due to his age and ill health. The assessee came to know about the ex-parte dismissal of his appeal by Ld. CIT(A) upon receiving show cause notice for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. He there enquired from his tax consultant regarding the status of appellate proceedings and thereafter, engaged another counsel to handle the matter. By this time, a delay of 655 days had occurred in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal by the new counsel. Since the delay is due to bonafide reasons Ld. AR has requested for condonation of the same and restoration of appeal for fresh decision by Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that there is no plausible explanation supported by the documentary evidence to justify the inordinate delay in filing of appeal and therefore, request for condonation of delay ought to be rejected. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that it is a case of genuine and bonafide delay due to peculiar fact and circumstances as explained in the affidavit. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 655 days and remand Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No. 4120/Mum/2025 AY 2011-12 Prasad Narayan Dhulap the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 30.07.2025 दिव्य रमेश न ुंिग वकर/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "