VENKATESH RAJGOPAL IYER,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8214/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Venkatesh Rajgopal Iyer against the orders of the CIT(A), which were dismissed on the grounds of limitation without considering the merits. The assessee had previously faced reassessment under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, leading to substantial additions to his income and a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals and directed a fresh examination of the case, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837817 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHIL B. SHENDGE
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH KUMAR GUDHER ABHISHEK BHOTRA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Salary income; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 148; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8214/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2015-16) ITA No.8215/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2015-16) Venkatesh Rajgopal Iyer 504, Plot No.11-12, Indraprastha Tower CHSL, Sector 29, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 PAN: AALPI8252R vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(3)(1)/Mumbai IT-Office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai-400703 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Suresh Kumar Gudher/ Shri Abhishek Bhotra, Respondent by : Shri Sushil B. Shendge (SR DR) Date of hearing : 10/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 16/02/2026 O R D E R Per Bench : Both the appeals of the assessee filed against the two separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity ‘the Ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2015-16, date of orders for both the appeals 08.10.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.8214 & 8215/Mum/2025 Venkatesh Rajgopal Iyer AO’), order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act & under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 14/03/2023 & 21.09.2023 respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-filer of income tax return. During the relevant financial year, the assessee had sold and purchased immovable property and had also earned salary income. The assessment was reopened under section 148 of the Act. However, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee during the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the Ld. AO passed an ex parte order. In the reassessment, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.87,00,000/- on account of sale of property by treating the same as short-term capital gain. Further, an amount of Rs.1,17,33,702/- relating to purchase of property, salary income of Rs.7,88,213/- received from M/s Seashores Ship Agency Pvt. Ltd., bank interest of Rs.5,070/-, and a sum of Rs.39,27,965/- being the balance amount credited in the assessee’s savings bank account (after excluding the salary component) were also added to the total income of the assessee. Thus, a total addition of Rs.2,59,43,163/- was made. Further, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated, and penalty equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, amounting to Rs.86,19,805/-, was levied. Aggrieved by the assessment and penalty orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the quantum appeal was filed with a delay of 417 days and the penalty appeal with a delay of 226 days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the petitions for condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for such delay. Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed on the ground of limitation without Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.8214 & 8215/Mum/2025 Venkatesh Rajgopal Iyer adjudicating the issues on merits. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeals before us. 3. Since both the appeals pertain to the same assessee, involving similar issues arising out of a similar factual matrix, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the appeal for the A.Y. 2015-16, ITA No. 8214/Mum/2025 is treated as a lead case, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to other appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper book containing page 1 to 188 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that the appeal was filed with a delay for 417 days related to the quantum. The Ld. AR further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on limitation without considering the merits of the case. 5. The Ld. DR strongly relied upon the orders of the revenue authorities and supported the findings recorded therein. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation, as the assessee failed to furnish any reasonable or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The impugned addition of Rs.2,59,43,168/- was made in the course of reassessment proceedings. The assessee is a salaried employee. Upon examination of the record, it is observed that the assessee had sold a property, Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.8214 & 8215/Mum/2025 Venkatesh Rajgopal Iyer the gains from which were treated as short-term capital gains, without allowing any cost of acquisition. Further, the investments in property, income from salary, interest income, and certain credits appearing in the bank account were treated as unexplained, as the same remained unsubstantiated before the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee deserves to be granted a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to explain the aforesaid additions. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to adjudicate the issues afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues are kept open for fresh consideration. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set-aside proceedings, and any evidence sought to be filed shall be considered in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain diligent and extend full cooperation to ensure expeditious disposal of the matter. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 8214 and 8215/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th day of February 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 16/02/2026 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.8214 & 8215/Mum/2025 Venkatesh Rajgopal Iyer SAUMYASr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/The Appellant , 2. Ůितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुƅ CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाडŊफाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI Printed from counselvise.com "