SEEMA PRITAM SHARMA ,MUMBAI V. I.T.O WARD 2(2), KALYAN

ITA 6595/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Seema Pritam Sharma, the appellant, who contested the dismissal of her appeal by the first appellate authority due to a delay of 305 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order for the year 2022-23. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 58,57,088 to her income, which the Assessing Officer claimed was unexplained regarding the source of payment for a property purchase. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay by the appellant's professional plausible and decided that the matter should be examined on its merits rather than being dismissed on procedural grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826698 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2025
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN KANTI DATTA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6595/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year:2022-23) Seema Pritam Sharma Omkar Complex, Kalyan D. C. S.O Kalyan, Thane-421 301 Vs. ITO Ward 2(2) Mohan Plaza, Near Poddar School, Vaile Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan (W)-421 301 PAN/GIR No. FAGPS 9995 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Bharat Kumar Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta Date of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 26.08.2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC for short) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2022- 23. 2. The primary grievance of the assessee is in respect of dismissal of her appeal in limine by the first appellate authority without condoning delay of 305 days. 3. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Briefly stated, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had filed her return of income on 31.07.2022, declaring income of Rs.11,40,566/-. In course of hearing, while verifying the bank account of the assessee, it transpired that the assessee had made payments of Rs.15,38,000/-. In course of assessment Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 6595/Mum/2025 (A.Y.2022-23) Seema Pritam Sharma vs. ITO proceeding, the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) found that as per the information available on record, the assessee had purchased property on payment of consideration of Rs.73,95,314/-. On verification of the bank account of the assessee, it transpired that an amount of Rs.15,38,226/- has been paid through the bank account. Alleging that the assessee could not furnish documentary evidence to establish the source of payment of balance amount of Rs.58,57,088/-, the A.O. added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. Contesting the addition made, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. However, the appeal was delayed by 305 days. 5. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee, while explaining the delay, submitted that the professional who was entrusted to file the appeal could not do it in time due to work load and technical issues. However, the first appellate authority did not find the explanation of the assessee satisfactory. Hence, without condoning delay, he dismissed the appeal in limine. 6. Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we are of the view that the reason for delay shown by the assessee appears to be plausible, hence, ought not to have been rejected. Moreover, the perusal of the assessment order clearly reveals that the addition was made only for the reason that the assessee failed to furnish adequate documentary evidences to prove the source of payment. Thus, in our view, the assessee deserves an opportunity to prove her case which can possibly be done if the issue is examined on merits. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the order of the first appellate authority and restore the matter back to his file for de novo adjudication on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 6595/Mum/2025 (A.Y.2022-23) Seema Pritam Sharma vs. ITO further direct the assessee to co-operate in finalizing the proceedings. Hence, the grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Jagadish) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 05.01.2026 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "