WILFRED FELIX D SOUZA,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 2(1), THANE

ITA 4529/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Wilfred Felix D'souza, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal due to a delay of 141 days. The appeal was originally against additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the Assessment Year 2016-17, due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence for high-value transactions. The Tribunal considered the assessee's explanations for the delay, including his absence from India and issues with communication, and decided to set aside the NFAC's order, allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786279 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: S. C. AGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4529/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Wilfred Felix D’souza, Flat No.101, Sector No.10-B-25, Shanti Nagar, Mira Road (E), Distt. Thane -401 107 Vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Thane (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. ANCPD 6821D Appellant by : Shri S.C. Agarwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. AR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 27.06.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The basic grievance of the assessee in present appeal is against dismissal of his appeal in- limine by learned First Appellate Authority on the ground of delay. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.4529/Mum/2025 Wilfred Felix D’souza 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, as stated by the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee did not file any return of income under section (u/s.) 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) despite entering into high value transactions. Therefore, based on information available with him, the AO reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. In course of assessment proceeding, the AO, from time to time, issued show cause notices to the assessee, calling upon him to furnish various information relating to purchase and sale of equity shares, sale of immovable properties etc. As noted by the AO, despite reasonable opportunity being granted, the assessee did not comply with various show cause notices issued and did not furnish supporting evidences to prove the transactions. Thus, in absence of supporting evidence, the AO made couple of additions aggregating to Rs.51,27,104/-. Contesting the additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 141 days. Though, the assessee explained the cause of delay and sought condonation thereof, however, learned First Appellate Authority was not convinced with the reasons shown for delay. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay. 4. Having considered rival submissions, we find, before the First Appellate Authority, while seeking condonation of delay, the assessee had explained that during the intervening period, the assessee was out of India. Further, he had stated that he is a senior citizen of 64 years and shifted to his native place in Mangalore, Karnataka. He had further stated that he lost his mobile number registered with the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.4529/Mum/2025 Wilfred Felix D’souza Income Tax Department, hence, did not receive any information regarding the completion of assessment. 5. Before us as well, the assessee submitted that due to the aforestated reasons, the assessee had no information regarding the completion of assessment. Further, the Authorized Representative who was handling the tax related issues did not inform him in proper time, therefore, the delay. 6. On perusal of the assessment order, we find, the disputed additions have been made purely due to lack of supporting evidence furnished by the assessee Therefore, the assessee deserves an opportunity to contest the additions by furnishing supporting evidence. Due to dismissal of his appeal in-limine on account of delay, the assessee did not get the opportunity to furnish the supporting evidences before learned First Appellate Authority. We have further observed that the delay is of 141 days, hence, cannot be considered to be inordinate. Further, the assessee has explained the cause of delay before the First Appellate Authority. 7. Having perused such submission, we are of the view that there can be some truth in assessee’s explanation hence, cannot be brushed aside completely. Thus, on overall consideration of facts and materials on record, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned First Appellate Authority, with a direction to decide assessee’s appeal on merits after condoning delay. Further, we direct the assessee to promptly respond to the hearing notice to be issued by learned First Appellate Authority and effectively participate in the proceedings to bring finality to it. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.4529/Mum/2025 Wilfred Felix D’souza 8. With the aforesaid observations, issues are restored back to the file of learned First Appellate Authority. 9. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 /10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Padmavathy S) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 30/10/2025 Aks/- 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 5 ITA No.4529/Mum/2025 Wilfred Felix D’souza Sr. No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictation sheets are attached Yes Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft dictated on 30.10.25 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft Placed before author 30.10.25 Sr.PS/PS 4 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 5 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 6 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 7 Order pronouncement on 30.10.25 Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to the Bench Clerk 31.10.25 Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the AR 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "