RAVINDRA SADANAND MARBALLI,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2262/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ravindra Sadanand Marballi, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed his appeal in limine due to a 30-day delay in filing. The original assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act was completed on 12.12.2018, where the assessing officer added Rs. 53,50,000 to the assessee's income, treating it as income from the sale of immovable property. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay in filing, which the assessee attributed to his absence from India and other personal circumstances. The Tribunal found the delay to be neither intentional nor deliberate and thus condoned it, restoring the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668721 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMA SHANKAR PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH THAKURDESAI
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2262/MUM/2025 (AY : 2011-12) (Physical hearing) RavindraSadanandMarballi B-6, Shreeniketan, Pandurangwadi, Goregaon East, Maharashtra – 400063. [PAN No. ALMPM2657E] Vs ITO-31(3)(1), Mumbai KautilyaBhavan, BandraKurla Complex, Maharashtra-400051 Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Sh. Ashish Thakurdesai, CA Revenue by Sh.Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR Date of hearing 24.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.06.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order ofld. CIT(A)07.02.2025 for A.Y. 2011-12. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 30 days in filing first appeal. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessment was completed under section 144 on 12.12.2018. The assessee could not make compliance due to change of local address and the assessee was out of India. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal on 13.12.2019. There was a delay of 30 days in filing fist appeal, the assessee filed application for condoning the delay. The assessee also filed application for admission of additional evidence and addition submission. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the additional evidence and remanded the matter to assessing officer for seeking his remand report. Before assessing officer, the assessee furnished requisite ITA No. 2262/Mum/2025 Ravindra Sadanand Marballi 2 details during remand proceeding. However, the appeal of assessee was dismissed in limine by ld. CIT(A) by taking view that assessee has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Resultantly, appeal of assessee was dismissed as unadmitted / in limine. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in condoning appeal before ld. CIT(A) was neither intentional nor deliberate. The case of assessee was reopened under section 147. During the relevant period, assessee was out of India. The assessee was in Muscat. The assessee sold his asset / immovable property in Goregaon and purchased another housing property in Mysore, Karnataka. The parents of assessee were senior citizen and was residing in Goregaon with his brother. The old aged parent of assessee were suffering from various age related ailment. The assessee used to look after them and engaged tax consultant, Ajit Gupte Chartered Accountant (CA) who himself was also more than 70 years old. He took time to file appeal, thus there was delay of 30 days. Delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee is really interested in pursuing appeal on merit. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if his case is heard on merit. The ld. AR submits that matter may be restored back to the file of assessing officer direction to allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He undertake on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that assessment was completed ITA No. 2262/Mum/2025 Ravindra Sadanand Marballi 3 on 12.12.2018. The assessing officer proceeded under section 144 by holding that despite service of show cause notice, the assessee failed to attend the proceeding. The assessing officer made addition of Rs. 53,50,000/- on account of sale of immovable property. The assessing officer treated the sale proceed of immovable property to the total income of assessee by holding that assessee failed to furnish details of property. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by not condoning the delay of 30 days in filing appeal. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has explained the cause of delay which we have recorded above. Considering the fact that delay is only of 30 days which is not inordinate. The assessee is really interested in pursuing his case on merit Considering the facts of the case, we find that delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) was not intentional, hence, the delay of 30 days is condoned. Further, considering the fact that lower authorities have not examined the case of assessee on merit, therefore, matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer to pass the order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the assessing officer shall allow reasonable and fair opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced on 24.06.2025 at the time of hearing of appeal. Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated: 24/06/2025 Biswajit ITA No. 2262/Mum/2025 Ravindra Sadanand Marballi 4 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai "