SMT SHRISHTI GUPTA,MUMBAI V. ITO 34(3)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 3163/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Shrishti Gupta, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which had declined to admit her appeal due to an alleged delay of eight days in filing the appeal against the assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had found the appeal to be filed belatedly without any application for condonation of delay. The tribunal, however, noted that the delay was due to a lack of communication and an inadvertent error in the appeal form, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh examination of the circumstances surrounding the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712706 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, Mahant Bikram Dass Chela v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: DINKLE HARIYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 144; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shrishti Gupta, 301, Swati Building, North Avenue Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai-400054. Vs. ITO34(3)(5) Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. ALAPD 2228 A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/07/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -10, Delhi [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: 1) The Id CIT(A) erred in considering date of service of assessment order on 7/12/2018 to consider for limitation period for filing of apple. Printed from counselvise.com 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred not condoning delay of eight days in filing of appeal. 3) The Ld CIT(A) by dismissing appeal and not admitting appeal has confirmed addition of Rs 5,06,747 made u/s 69 of the ITAct, 1961. 4) The Ld CIT(A) erred in wrongly confirming sale of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. PRAYERS. 1) Delay in filing of appeal be condoned. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted. The appellant creaves leave to add, modify and or withdraw any ground of 2. We have heard rival submissions of the parties an the relevant material was completed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") on 07.12.2018. The assessee preferred an appeal before the challenging the said assessment. However, the learned CIT(A), vide the impugned order, declined to admit the appeal on the ground that it had been filed belatedly by 8 days, and further, that no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the a The learned CIT(A) recorded that the appeal in Form No. 35 had been filed on 15.01.2019, whereas the limitation period for filing the appeal, computed from the date of service of the order, expired on 06.01.2019. Observing that the assessee neith delay in column no. 14 of Form No. 35 nor offered any explanation for the same, the learned CIT(A) declined to entertain the appeal ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 CIT(A) erred not condoning delay of eight days in filing of appeal. 3) The Ld CIT(A) by dismissing appeal and not admitting appeal has confirmed addition of Rs 5,06,747 made u/s 69 of the ITAct, 1961. 4) The Ld CIT(A) erred in wrongly confirming sale of shares as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 1) Delay in filing of appeal be condoned. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted. The appellant creaves leave to add, modify and or withdraw of appeal. heard rival submissions of the parties an on record. In the present case, the assessment was completed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") on The assessee preferred an appeal before the challenging the said assessment. However, the learned CIT(A), vide the impugned order, declined to admit the appeal on the ground that it had been filed belatedly by 8 days, and further, that no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the a The learned CIT(A) recorded that the appeal in Form No. 35 had been filed on 15.01.2019, whereas the limitation period for filing the appeal, computed from the date of service of the order, expired on 06.01.2019. Observing that the assessee neither admitted to any delay in column no. 14 of Form No. 35 nor offered any explanation for the same, the learned CIT(A) declined to entertain the appeal Smt. Shrishti Gupta 2 ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 CIT(A) erred not condoning delay of eight days in 3) The Ld CIT(A) by dismissing appeal and not admitting appeal has confirmed addition of Rs 5,06,747 made u/s 69 of shares as 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted. The appellant creaves leave to add, modify and or withdraw heard rival submissions of the parties and perused In the present case, the assessment was completed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") on The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) challenging the said assessment. However, the learned CIT(A), vide the impugned order, declined to admit the appeal on the ground that it had been filed belatedly by 8 days, and further, that no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) recorded that the appeal in Form No. 35 had been filed on 15.01.2019, whereas the limitation period for filing the appeal, computed from the date of service of the order, expired on er admitted to any delay in column no. 14 of Form No. 35 nor offered any explanation for the same, the learned CIT(A) declined to entertain the appeal Printed from counselvise.com and held that, in the absence of any cause shown for the delay, the question of condonation did not arise the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab Special Land Acquisition Off that delay can be condoned only upon sufficient cause being shown and that a litigant who remains inactive or is negligent cannot claim indulgence as a matter of right. CIT(A) is reproduced “2. Decision :- 2.1 As mentioned at the outset, against the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 07.12.2018, the appellant filed an appeal vide Form No.35 dated 15.01.2019. From the date of issue of the original or delay of 8 days in filing appeal. The appeal should have been filed within 30 days i.e. by 06.01.2019 from service of Order / Notice of Demand as per Section 249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant delay in filing of the appeal and hence has naturally not given any reason for delayed filing of appeal. As the appellant has failed to provide any reason whatsoever, there is no question of condonation of delay and hence the appeal treated as defective. 2.2 There is a statutory limit prescribed for filing of appeal in the Act. The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the Addl./JCI appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant cannot be entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. 2.3 In the instant case, the issue of the merits of the made by the AO and the grounds of appeal raised by the ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 and held that, in the absence of any cause shown for the delay, the question of condonation did not arise. In support of this conclusion, the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram (2023), Mahant Bikram Dass Chela v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reiterating the well-settled principle that delay can be condoned only upon sufficient cause being shown and that a litigant who remains inactive or is negligent cannot claim indulgence as a matter of right. The relevant observation of the is reproduced as under: - As mentioned at the outset, against the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 07.12.2018, the appellant filed an appeal vide Form No.35 dated 15.01.2019. From the date of issue of the original order it is seen, that there is a delay of 8 days in filing appeal. The appeal should have been filed within 30 days i.e. by 06.01.2019 from service of Order / Notice of Demand as per Section 249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has not admitted to any delay in filing of the appeal and hence has naturally not given any reason for delayed filing of appeal. As the appellant has failed to provide any reason whatsoever, there is no question of condonation of delay and hence the appeal has to be treated as defective. There is a statutory limit prescribed for filing of appeal in the Act. The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the Addl./JCIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant cannot be entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. In the instant case, the issue of the merits of the additions made by the AO and the grounds of appeal raised by the Smt. Shrishti Gupta 3 ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 and held that, in the absence of any cause shown for the delay, the . In support of this conclusion, the learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court Mahant Bikram Dass Chela v. Basawaraj & Anr. v. settled principle that delay can be condoned only upon sufficient cause being shown and that a litigant who remains inactive or is negligent cannot claim The relevant observation of the Ld. As mentioned at the outset, against the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 07.12.2018, the appellant filed an appeal vide Form No.35 dated 15.01.2019. From the der it is seen, that there is a delay of 8 days in filing appeal. The appeal should have been filed within 30 days i.e. by 06.01.2019 from service of Order / Notice of Demand as per Section 249(2) of the Act. In column has not admitted to any delay in filing of the appeal and hence has naturally not given any reason for delayed filing of appeal. As the appellant has failed to provide any reason whatsoever, there is no question has to be There is a statutory limit prescribed for filing of appeal in the Act. The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on T (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant cannot be entitled to automatic additions made by the AO and the grounds of appeal raised by the Printed from counselvise.com appellant could be taken up only when this first stage of delay was addressed. 2.4 In the case of January, 2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court “What has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must b for the delay. In the present case, this delay has not been explained to the satisfaction of the court...In the case of Mahant Bikram Dass Chela versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and Others (SC) has held hard task encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every day’s delay of Basawaraj and Another Acquisition Officer (SC) while rejecting an applicati condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: “The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the c the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 appellant could be taken up only when this first stage of delay was addressed. In the case of Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram dated 31 January, 2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “What we have here is a pure civil matter. An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. In the present case, this delay has not been explained to the satisfaction of the court...In the case of Mahant Bikram Dass Chela versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and Others (SC) has held “Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around Section 5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights explain every day’s delay This Court in the case of Basawaraj and Another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer (SC) while rejecting an applicati condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: “The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant Smt. Shrishti Gupta 4 ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 appellant could be taken up only when this first stage of delay Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram dated 31 has held that – we have here is a pure civil matter. An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but the fact e a reasonable explanation for the delay. In the present case, this delay has not been explained to the satisfaction of the court...In the case of Mahant Bikram Dass Chela versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and “Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure law has grown around Section 5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights This Court in the case versus Special Land Acquisition Officer (SC) while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: “The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, ourt as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant Printed from counselvise.com to approach the court on time, condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condi whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” 2.10 In view of the facts as discussed hereinabove and the judicial decisions on the matter of delay in appeal is not admitted for adjudication as it is delayed and not filed within the time limit provided and no cause whatsoever has been provided by the appellant In the absence of any cause for the delay, the same cannot condoned. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted. 2.1 Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was, in fact, no intentional delay in filing the appeal. It was explained that due to incorrect email communicati accountant, the assessee came to know of the assessment order only around 12th or 13th January, 2019, when the newly joined accountant discovered the order at the earlier business premises and forwarded it to the assessee. On coming to kno reassessment proceedings, the assessee promptly contacted her Chartered Accountant, and the appeal was filed without delay on 15.01.2019. It is further submitted that while filing Form No. 35, the assessee inadvertently entered the date of the rea order itself as the date of service, and therefore answered \"No\" to the question regarding delay. As a result, no application for condonation was filed, although the factual circumstances, if appreciated, would show that there was sufficient caus delay is found to exist. ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 to approach the court on time, condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condi whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” 2.10 In view of the facts as discussed hereinabove and the judicial decisions on the matter of delay in filing appeals, this appeal is not admitted for adjudication as it is delayed and not filed within the time limit provided and no cause whatsoever has been provided by the appellant for the delay. In the absence of any cause for the delay, the same cannot In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was, in fact, no intentional delay in filing the appeal. It was explained that due to incorrect email communication and change of accountant, the assessee came to know of the assessment order only around 12th or 13th January, 2019, when the newly joined accountant discovered the order at the earlier business premises and forwarded it to the assessee. On coming to kno reassessment proceedings, the assessee promptly contacted her Chartered Accountant, and the appeal was filed without delay on 15.01.2019. It is further submitted that while filing Form No. 35, the assessee inadvertently entered the date of the rea order itself as the date of service, and therefore answered \"No\" to the question regarding delay. As a result, no application for condonation was filed, although the factual circumstances, if appreciated, would show that there was sufficient caus delay is found to exist. Smt. Shrishti Gupta 5 ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 to approach the court on time, condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing 2.10 In view of the facts as discussed hereinabove and the filing appeals, this appeal is not admitted for adjudication as it is delayed and not filed within the time limit provided and no cause for the delay. In the absence of any cause for the delay, the same cannot be In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted.” Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was, in fact, no intentional delay in filing the appeal. It was on and change of accountant, the assessee came to know of the assessment order only around 12th or 13th January, 2019, when the newly joined accountant discovered the order at the earlier business premises and forwarded it to the assessee. On coming to know of the reassessment proceedings, the assessee promptly contacted her Chartered Accountant, and the appeal was filed without delay on 15.01.2019. It is further submitted that while filing Form No. 35, the assessee inadvertently entered the date of the reassessment order itself as the date of service, and therefore answered \"No\" to the question regarding delay. As a result, no application for condonation was filed, although the factual circumstances, if appreciated, would show that there was sufficient cause, if any Printed from counselvise.com The relevant submission of the assessee is reproduced as under: “7. It was only when the accountant of the new occupants of the office located at 18, Santogen House, found the order and sent it to the Applicant sometime January, 2019, that the Applicant came to know that the reassessment order had been passed in her case. 8. On such knowledge, the Applicant contacted her Chartered Accountant for further course of action. On advise, the Applicant took order before the Ld. CIT(A) and, accordingly, the appeal came to be filed on 15.01.2019. 9. Out of abundant caution, even though the date of knowledge of the Applicant was 12th or 13th of January, 2019, while f mentioned the date of the reassessment order as the date of service of the order be a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the CIT (A). In fact, for this reason, in Form 35, the Applicant against the question 'Whether there is delay in 2.2 In light of the above explanation, and having regard to the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned CIT(A) adjudication. The learned CIT(A) shall examine, on the basis of available records and the submissions of the assessee, the actual date on which the assessment order came to the knowledge of the assessee. If it is found that the appeal was filed of limitation, the learned CIT(A) shall communicate the same to the assessee and afford an opportunity to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay supported by relevant material, including an affidavit. Upon such applicati learned CIT(A) shall adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay in ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 The relevant submission of the assessee is reproduced as under: It was only when the accountant of the new occupants of the office located at 18, Santogen House, found the order and sent it to the Applicant sometime around 12th or 13th January, 2019, that the Applicant came to know that the reassessment order had been passed in her case. On such knowledge, the Applicant contacted her Chartered Accountant for further course of action. On advise, the Applicant took immediate steps to file an appeal against the order before the Ld. CIT(A) and, accordingly, the appeal came to be filed on 15.01.2019. Out of abundant caution, even though the date of knowledge of the Applicant was 12th or 13th of January, 2019, while filing Form 35, the Applicant mentioned the date of the reassessment order as the date of service of the order. As a result, there appeared to be a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the CIT (A). In fact, for this reason, in Form 35, the Applicant has stated 'No' against the question 'Whether there is delay in filing appeal'. In light of the above explanation, and having regard to the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned CIT(A) adjudication. The learned CIT(A) shall examine, on the basis of available records and the submissions of the assessee, the actual date on which the assessment order came to the knowledge of the assessee. If it is found that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, the learned CIT(A) shall communicate the same to the assessee and afford an opportunity to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay supported by relevant material, including an affidavit. Upon such application being filed, the learned CIT(A) shall adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay in Smt. Shrishti Gupta 6 ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 The relevant submission of the assessee is reproduced as under: It was only when the accountant of the new occupants of the office located at 18, Santogen House, found the order and around 12th or 13th January, 2019, that the Applicant came to know that the On such knowledge, the Applicant contacted her Chartered Accountant for further course of action. On advise, the immediate steps to file an appeal against the order before the Ld. CIT(A) and, accordingly, the appeal came Out of abundant caution, even though the date of knowledge of the Applicant was 12th or 13th of iling Form 35, the Applicant mentioned the date of the reassessment order as the . As a result, there appeared to be a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the CIT (A). In has stated 'No' appeal'.” In light of the above explanation, and having regard to the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(A) shall examine, on the basis of available records and the submissions of the assessee, the actual date on which the assessment order came to the knowledge of the beyond the period of limitation, the learned CIT(A) shall communicate the same to the assessee and afford an opportunity to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay supported by relevant material, on being filed, the learned CIT(A) shall adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay in Printed from counselvise.com accordance with law and thereafter proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits, should the delay be condoned. We make it clear that we express no opinion on the suffici stage, and the same shall be independently examined by the learned CIT(A) on remand. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 3. In the result, the appeal statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/07/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 accordance with law and thereafter proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits, should the delay be condoned. We make it clear that we express no opinion on the sufficiency of the explanation at this stage, and the same shall be independently examined by the learned CIT(A) on remand. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for nounced in the open Court on 30/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Smt. Shrishti Gupta 7 ITA No. 3163/MUM/2025 accordance with law and thereafter proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits, should the delay be condoned. We make it clear that we ency of the explanation at this stage, and the same shall be independently examined by the learned CIT(A) on remand. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. of the assessee is allowed for /07/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "