VINAYA PRASANNA KULKARNI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN () & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () Assessment Year: 2019-2020
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
24.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2019-2020, raising following grounds:
Ground I
A. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.
CIT(A) NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay in f filing and mer
B. The Ld. CIT i. was a hous below taxable ii. She has sh back and did iii. She becam shared her em iv. Thus, the not adjudicate of natural jus
C. The appella sufficient opp and the said o
GROUND II
A. On the fac learned
ITO
Rs.1,00,00,00
unexplained i
B. On the fac failed to appr
1. The Asses was reported by AO.
ii. The said d husband from The appellant considered.
C.
The ap
Rs.1,00,00,00
please be dele
GROUND III
Vin
ITA filing the appeal, ignoring the bona fide f rits of the case is bad at law.
T(A) failed to appreciate that the appellan sewife and not a Income tax return filer w e limit.
hifted from the address registered in PAN not update the site since she was a non f me aware of the order through her banke mail id.
assessee was not granted proper oppo ed on merits is bad at law and against th tice.
ant therefore prays that order passed wit portunity to substantiate the claims is b order be annulled.
cts and circumstances of the case, and i
O
Ward
4(1)
Thane
("AO") erre
00/- u/s 69A and taxed U/s 115BBE of investments in Fixed Deposits.
ts and circumstances of the case and in reciate that:
see has made a FD of Rs.50,00,000/- o d twice and addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- deposit was out of the money transferre m his known source of income via banking t's explanations submitted before the CIT ppellant, therefore, prays that ad
00/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained m eted.
naya Prasanna Kulkarni
2
A No. 5726/MUM/2025
for delay in nt with income
N 15 years filer.
er who has rtunity and he principle thout giving bad at law in Law, the ed adding f the Act, as law the AO only, which was made ed from her g channels.
TA were not ddition of money may A. On the fac learned ITO being interest
B. On the fac failed to appr i. The Assess mentioned in ii. The Interes iii. The appell not considered
The addition
Section 115BB
V. The tax is mentioning in C. The appell bank Interest
2. We have heard t available on record. I
CIT(A) declined to c relevant findings reco
“3. It is clear was made on on 07.03.202
beyond presc required to fi
249(2) on rec appellant reg but is not acc in form 35 t appellant also might obtain mail id in the months to file the statutory evidence whic
Vin
ITA cts and circumstances of the case, and i
Ward 4(1) Thane ("AO") erred adding R t on Fixed Deposits.
ts and circumstances of the case and in reciate that:
ee could not file the return of income due ground no 1. st earned is below the threshold limit of ta lant's explanations submitted before the d.
is not made under any sections whi
BE. iv.
s calculated U/s 115BBE on the incom n the order.
ant, therefore, prays that addition of Rs.8
taxed U/s115BBE may please be delet the rival submissions and perus
It is observed that, in the prese condone the delay in filing th orded by the Ld. CIT(A) read as u r from the above that the order u/s 147
n 07.03.2024 which got served upon th
24 but the appeal was filed on 24.0
cribed time of 30 days, whereas, the app le appeal within 30 days as provided v ceipt of order u/s 147 r.w.s 144. The pet garding late filing of appeal is carefully eptable on merit as the appellant has itse that the order was received on 07.03
o stated in its request petition for delay t the mail id from bank and sent the no month of may, but still the appellant too e the appeal, which shows callous attitu notices. The appellant did not file any do ch prevent it from filing the appeal withi naya Prasanna Kulkarni
3
A No. 5726/MUM/2025
in Law, the Rs.88,656/- law the AO e to reasons axation.
CITA were ich attracts me without
88,656/- of ted.
sed the material ent case, the Ld.
he appeal. The under:
7 r.w.s 144
e appellant
9.2024 i.e.
pellant was vide section tition of the considered elf declared
.2024. The that the AO tices to the ok around 5
de towards ocumentary in statutory time limits. Th reason which contention of It should be n certain obliga observed. It i interest of pr
Delhi in case petition No. 8
of condonatio circumstances compliance a present case, of appeal is n a suitable cau
The appellant receipt of dem so. Hence, th as provided in not satisfied presenting th appeal was n section 249(2)
3. Before us, the affidavit and submitt from the address ea nearly 15 years ago a the income-tax porta proceedings initiated banker shared her e proceedings were p assessment order. T professional and filed
Vin
ITA
Therefore, the appellant has not given an h prevented it to file appeal in time. The the appellant is without any substance in noted that the legislature has provided tim ations under the Act and these time limits is compliance requirements imposed by roper regulation of the Act. Hon'ble Hig e of Lava International Ltd Vs CBDT in 8293/2024 dated 30.5.2024 has stated on can be exercised to delay with the ex s only which would have led to delay i and the same cannot be exercises routin the cause stated by the appellant for de not an extraordinary cause and therefore use for condoning the delay in filing of app t was required to file appeal within 30 d mand notice. However, the appellant ha he reason stated can't be relied upon and n the section 249 (3) of the IT Act. Accord that the appellate had sufficient cau he appeal within the specified period. He not filed within prescribed time as prov
) of the IT Act, the same is not admitted.
Ld. Counsel for the assesse ted that the assessee, a housew arlier furnished to the Income-t and inadvertently failed to upda al. Consequently, she remained by the Assessing Officer. It was e-mail ID with the Departmen pursued, that she became
The assessee thereafter prom d the appeal without further dela naya Prasanna Kulkarni
4
A No. 5726/MUM/2025
ny sufficient erefore, the n it.
me limits for s have to be law in the gh Court of n Civil writ that power xtraordinary in statutory nely. In the elay in filing e, this is not peal.
days of the as not done d therefore, dingly, I am use for not ence, since, vided in the .”
ee has filed an wife, had shifted tax Department ate the same on unaware of the s only when her nt, and recovery aware of the ptly engaged a ay.
We have given submissions and ex request for condon prescribes a limitatio CIT(A). However, und to condone the delay 4.1 The expression Hon’ble Supreme Co (1987) 167 ITR 471 interpretation in ord law is that the length significance is wheth to explain the de technicalities should absence of mala fide discretion to condone appellant demonstrat 4.2 In the present that she had shif Department years ea due to non-updation appears bona fide, a the Revenue to con Vin ITA n our thoughtful consideratio xamined the record relevant to nation of delay. Section 249 on of 30 days for filing an appea der section 249(3), the Ld. CIT(A if “sufficient cause” is demonstr “sufficient cause” has been int ourt in Collector, Land Acquisiti 1 (SC), to be elastic and cap der to advance substantial just h of delay is not of primary relev her the cause shown is bona fid elay. Courts have consisten d not thwart adjudication on es or deliberate neglect. At the e delay must be exercised judici ting cogent and bona fide reason case, the assessee has satisfac fted from the address avail arlier and remained unaware of n of particulars on the portal. T nd no material has been broug ntrovert the assessee’s assert naya Prasanna Kulkarni 5 A No. 5726/MUM/2025 on to the rival o the assessee’s (2) of the Act al before the Ld. A) is empowered rated. terpreted by the on v. Mst. Katiji pable of liberal tice. The settled vance; what is of de and sufficient ntly held that merits, in the same time, the iously, upon the ns for the delay. ctorily explained lable with the the proceedings The explanation ght on record by tions. In these circumstances, we ar prevented by suffici prescribed period. W appeal before the Ld. 5. Since the appe limitation, the Ld. CI We therefore direct t appeal, and dispose o 6. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (SANDEEP G JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 17/11/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Vin
ITA re of the considered view that th ient cause from filing the app
We accordingly condone the del
CIT(A).
al was dismissed in limine on IT(A) has not adjudicated the is the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the d of the same on merits in accorda the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 17/
/-
S
GOSAIN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu naya Prasanna Kulkarni
6
A No. 5726/MUM/2025
he assessee was peal within the lay in filing the n the ground of ssues on merits.
delay, admit the ance with law.
is allowed for 11/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai