SATISH ARJUN CHAVAN ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 42(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 193/MUM/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Satish Arjun Chavan, the appellant, contesting an order from the Income Tax Officer regarding the assessment for the year 2018-19. The primary contention was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to a delay in filing, which the appellant argued was caused by the provisional nature of the assessment order and the pending valuation report from the Government Valuation Officer. The Tribunal's decision focused on whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the case should be heard on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838954 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: VENUGOPAL NAIR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Period of limitation; Valuation report; Rectification of order; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 148; 154; 50C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 193/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Satish Arjun Chavan, Flat No.3, Shree Ganesh Appt., 352 Golanji Hill Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 PAN: ACNPC3317P ............... Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(3)(3), Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai- 400051 ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Shri Venugopal Nair Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 19/02/2026 Date of Order - 20/02/2026 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 17.12.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law by dismissing the appeal without considering the merits of the case by Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.193/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2018-19) 2 not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, thus failing to appreciate that the term 'sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice, as no male fide intention or deliberate negligence can be attributed to the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law by not appreciating that assessment order framed pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 of The Act by Jurisdictional Assessing officer is liable to be quashed. 3. The Ld. CITA) erred in not appreciating that the order has been passed without AO taking cognizance of Section 153 of the Act requiring exclusion of period commencing from the date of reference to a Valuation Officer till the receipt of the valuation report for computing the limitation period. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that rectification u/s 154 is only of a mistake apparent on record and hence the order subject to receipt of order from DVO in future and thus not on record while passing the order is perverse and without jurisdiction. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that an order subject to rectification upon receipt of the valuation report can only be a provisional Order and is thus without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed as there is no provision in the income-tax Act permitting the Ld. AO to pass a provisional assessment Order. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating that gain on sale of property held for more than 2 years qualify as LTCG and not appreciating that payment for stamp duty can be considered for computing cost of acquisition and not appreciating AO has denied benefit of indexation.” 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee against the addition made under section 50C by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 27.03.2023 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act. 4. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the valuation of the property was referred to the Government Valuation Officer during the pendency of the scrutiny Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.193/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2018-19) 3 proceedings. However, as the assessment was getting time-barred, the AO proceeded to pass the assessment order without further waiting for the report from the Government Valuation Officer. The learned AR submitted that, vide the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, the AO observed that, on receipt of the report from the Government Valuation Officer, the rectification order shall be rectified. Accordingly, the assessee, who is a salaried employee, considered the assessment order to be a provisional assessment order, as per the advice given by his consultant, and did not file the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. The learned AR submitted that the assessee filed an application under section 154 of the Act on 18.10.2023, when the AO did not pass the rectified order even after receipt of the report from the DVO. It was further submitted that pursuant to the advice from another Chartered Accountant, the assessee immediately took necessary steps for filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the AO. Thus, the learned AR submitted that due to the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was filed after a delay of 215 days. The assessee has also placed on record its affidavit in support of the aforesaid submission. 5. As is evident from the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) did not agree with similar submissions made by the assessee and held that the assessee failed to demonstrate reasonable cause or exceptional circumstances warranting condonation of delay. The learned CIT(A) also held that the assessee has not filed any affidavit confirming the reasons for the delay. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.193/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2018-19) 4 Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the basis that the same is barred by limitation, without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits. 6. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and Ors., reported in 1987 (2) SCR 387. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It is evident from the record that, in the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has proved sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the said delay should be condoned. Hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for consideration on merits, as per law, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage, and therefore, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.193/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2018-19) 5 same are kept open. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/02/2026 Sd/- VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 20/02/2026 Prabhat 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. Printed from counselvise.com "