SHOBHA KISHOR PAWAR,GHATKOPAR (WEST) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VASHI RAILWAY STATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4996/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 September 2025AY 2011-20126 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding bonafide in the assessee's request. The Tribunal noted that the property purchase consideration of Rs. 63,30,500/- and a cash deposit of Rs. 5,15,000/- were added to the income of the assessees under Sections 69 and 69A, respectively, due to non-appearance and lack of submissions before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessees were prevented from presenting their case due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically the prolonged illness and demise of Late Shri Kishor Hiru Pawar. Both parties agreed that restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication would serve the interest of substantial justice. The Tribunal allowed the assessees to furnish necessary submissions and evidence before the AO to substantiate their case on merits. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made under Sections 69 and 69A but remanded the matter for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The appeals concern Assessment Year 2011-12, filed by Late Kishor Hiru Pawar (through legal heir Shobha Kishor Pawar) and Shobha Kishor Pawar, against separate orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC. These orders arose from assessment orders passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officers. The appeals before the ITAT were delayed by 586 and 770 days, respectively. The reasons for the delay and non-appearance before lower authorities were attributed to the prolonged illness and eventual demise of Late Shri Kishor Hiru Pawar, who managed the family's tax matters. The assessee purchased property for Rs. 63,30,500/- but did not file a return. The entire purchase consideration was added to the income of both assessees under Section 69. Additionally, a cash deposit of Rs. 5,15,000/- was added to Late Shri Kishor Hiru Pawar's income under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2011-12 should be condoned, considering the circumstances presented by the assessee? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of condonation of delay). 2. Whether the matters should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessees an opportunity to present their case on merits? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing appeals and non-compliance before the lower authorities were due to the prolonged illness and subsequent death of Late Shri Kishor Hiru Pawar, who was solely responsible for managing tax matters. They submitted death certificates and medical records to support their claim of inability to represent the case. They requested condonation of delay and restoration of the matters to the AO for a fair opportunity to present evidence and submissions. The assessee relied on the principle of substantial justice and circumstances beyond their control. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the CIT DR, initially relied on the orders of the lower authorities. However, considering the facts of prolonged illness, demise of one assessee, and the inability of the other to represent the matter due to lack of acquaintance with tax laws, the Revenue fairly conceded to the assessee's request to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 69,Section 69A,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 4988/MUM/2025
ITA No. 4996/MUM/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeals are filed by the assessees against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/NFAC (in short ‘Ld. and 4996/MUM/2025 Kishor Hiru Pawar & Shobha Kishor Pawar CIT(A)’) dated 11.10.2023 (Late Shri Kishor Hiru Pawar) and 10.04.2023 (Smt. Shobha Kishor Pawar) both for A.Y. 2011-12. Which in turn arises from the orders passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘The Act’) by Income Tax Officer - 27(2)(1), Mumbai on 16.11.2018 and Income Tax Officer -27(3)(3), Mumbai on 04.12.2018, respectively. The issue involved in the present matters are inter connected, so these appeals are taken up together for hearing and adjudicated under this common order.

2.

While the matter of Late Shri. Kishor Hiru Pawar in was fixed before this bench on 22.09.2025, it is mentioned by Ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee Shri. Kishor Hiru Pawar was passed away on 01.04.2025, therefore it is desirable to substitute the legal heir of Shri. Kishor Hiru Pawar to proceed and peruse the matter. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned and fixed for hearing on 25.09.2025. Accordingly, Ld.AR of the assessee had submitted an application for substitution of legal heir, which was taken on record and the matter is taken up for hearing.

3.

At the outset it is submitted by Ld.AR that the appeal of assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) on ex-parte basis on account of noncompliance, thereby accepting the view take by Ld.AO. It is further submitted that before and 4996/MUM/2025 Kishor Hiru Pawar & Shobha Kishor Pawar Ld.AO also the assessee could not represent its case, for the reasons explained herein below, therefore the order was passed on ex-parte basis u/s 144 of the Act.

4.

It is further submitted by Ld.AR that the both the appeals filed before the ITAT are also delayed by 586 days and 770 days. To explain the reasons for delays, applications for condonation are submitted, placed in the assessee’s paper book along with documents like death certificate of Shri. Kishor Hiru Pawar, PAN and Aadhar of legal heir copy of notice u/s 156, appeal memo, statement of facts, grounds of appeal etc. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that Late Shri. Kishor Hiru Pawar was on bed, suffering with prolonged illness, continuously for approximately 3 to 4 years, until his demise on 01-04-2025, which was the main cause behind the inability of assessee’s to peruse the tax matters before the revenue authorities below. It is mentioned that, he was the only person looking after the tax matters of family, therefore, the assessment of Smt. Shobha Kishor Pawar was also remained unattended before the revenue authority in a timely manner. It is submitted that the delay occasioned was inadvertent, bonafide without any mala fide intension or negligence but because of circumstances beyond the control of assessee. Therefore, following the settled principle of law, the same may be condoned. Ld.AR also furnished the and 4996/MUM/2025 Kishor Hiru Pawar & Shobha Kishor Pawar copy of death certificate of late Shri. Kishor Hiru Pawar and his medical records etc. to support the aforesaid contention.

5.

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find bonafide in the request of the Ld.AR and therefore the delay occasioned in the aforesaid cases stands condoned.

6.

The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration the assessee along with his wife has purchased a property for a consideration of 63,30,500/- but has not filed the return of income. Further during the reopening assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, the assessee has not put up any appearance before the Ld.AO, therefore the entire amount of purchase is added in the hands of Shri. Kishor Hiru Pawar as well as in the hands of Smt. Shobha Kishor Pawar, also u/s 69 of the Act. Apart from this, one more disallowance of cash deposit amounting to Rs. 5,15,000/- was made in the hands of late Shri. Kishor Hiru Pawar u/s 69A of the Act. Since, the assessee was under ill medical conditions, bed ridden, facing difficulties of day today life due to sufferings of prolonged decease, was prevented with valid reasons to address the tax matters before the Ld.AO and again before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, it is requested by Ld.AR that one opportunity be provided to the assessee by restoring the matters back to file of Ld.AO, so that necessary compliance can and 4996/MUM/2025 Kishor Hiru Pawar & Shobha Kishor Pawar be made and on verification of the facts and evidence by the Ld.AO, a legitimate conclusion can be drawn.

7.

On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR though relied upon the order of revenue authorities, but considering the facts and circumstances of the present case wherein Late Shri. Kishor Hiru Pawar was passed away after prolonged decease and Smt. Shobha Kishor Pawar was unable to representing the matter, as she was not acquainted with the taxation laws and proceedings, therefore, has fairly conceded to the request of assessee, to restore the matter back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh adjudication.

8.

Having considering the rival submission and perused the material on record and the contention / request of the Ld.AR. Admittedly in the present case certain transaction of property purchase was doubted by the revenue and added to the income of aforesaid assessee u/s 69 and 69A of the Act. However, the assessee before u/s. through its Ld.AR had substantiated that the assess could not furnished the relevant submissions and evidence of source of purchases, for the reasons beyond their control (described supra). Accordingly, Smt. Shobha Kishor Pawar and late Shri. Kishor Hiru Pawar (through legal heir) were unable to represent the matter. In terms of aforesaid observation, as fairly agreed by both the parties, in the interest of substantiate justice, it would be appropriate to restore this matter back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee’s herein are permitted to furnished necessary and 4996/MUM/2025 Kishor Hiru Pawar & Shobha Kishor Pawar submissions and evidence before Ld.AO to substantiate their case on merits, in order to complete the assessment, in accordance with the mandate of law.

9.

In the result, the aforesaid two appeals of the captioned assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 26.09.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →