VIMLA GYANCHAND MADHANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2021-22
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
These appeals have been preferred by different Assessees against the orders dated 28.02.2025, 29.03.2025, 28.02.2025 &
29.03.2025 impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2021-22. 2. These appeals having involved almost identical facts and circumstances and issues except variation in amounts, therefore for the sake of brevity, the same are heard together and disposed of vide this composite order by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and issues involved in ITA No.4892/M/2025 as a lead case and result of the same would-be applicable mutatis mutandis to all the appeals under consideration.
ITA No.4892/M/2025 & Ors.
Mrs. Vimla Gyanchand Madhani & Ors.
3
3. Coming to ITA No.4892/M/2025, it is observed that there is a delay of 96 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed as under:
“3. Reason for the Delay:
The senior accountant, Mr. Pravin Arondekar, responsible for tracking the Orders and filing Appeals, was under tremendous personal duress due to issues concerning the dilapidated position of his residential house at C7, Rajdeep Nagar, Village Road,
Bhandup West, Mumbai 400078, which ultimately was partially demolished by the BMC, Mumbai. Therefore, he could not attend to the matters before CIT(A) and further proceedings and hence couldn't file an Appeal before your Honor's within the applicable due date.
The delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional.
That the delay was not intentional, but caused due to the bona fide reasons stated above.
If the delay is not condoned, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and injury, and a valuable opportunity of being heard on merits would be denied.”
On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the contention/reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay.
Having considered the reasons stated by the Assessee for the delay in filing the instant appeal, as genuine, unintentional and bonafide, the delay of 96 days in filing of this appeal, is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 27.04.2023 u/s 143(3) of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.1,80,000/-, which was claimed as deduction by the Assessee u/s 57 of the Act, for not submitting any explanation and document in respect of its claim.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said assessment order and/or addition by filing first appeal before the ITA No.4892/M/2025 & Ors. Mrs. Vimla Gyanchand Madhani & Ors.
4
Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording four opportunities eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submission/documents. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances and by observing that “the Assessee has not furnished the information before the AO and any supporting documents like copy of bank statement of Navjivan Investment along with its confirmation letter and since the Assessee has failed to produce any supporting evidence in respect of deduction of Rs.1,80,000/- claimed u/s 57 of the Act”, affirmed the disallowance made by the AO.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, has preferred the instant appeal.
This Court by giving thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances and the rival contentions of the parties and the orders passed by the authorities below has observed that the Assessee before the AO and the CIT(A) has failed to file the relevant and supporting documents in support of her claim and therefore, the Assessee is not entitled for any leniency and/or relief as sought by way of this appeal, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances again, as the issue involved in the case also remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of relevant submissions/ documentary evidence, therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice and considering the conduct of the Assessee, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to deposit of Rs.5,500/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from today. Suffice to say, the Ld. Commissioner, shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
ITA No.4892/M/2025 & Ors.
Mrs. Vimla Gyanchand Madhani & Ors.
5
10. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions
/documents in order to substantiate her claim. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh in above terms.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, as all appeals under consideration are based on identical facts and having involved identical issues and therefore in view of judgment in ITA No.4892/M/2025 by this Court, all are allowed for statistical purposes, in the same terms as above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.