BHAGWANTI PRAKASHCHANDRA PIPADA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA No.2952/Mum/2026 is relating to quantum additions, whereas, vide ITA No.2953/Mum/2026, the assessee has agitated the confirmation of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”].

Ms. Pooja Jain, Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a layman and is not much conversant with the online income tax proceedings. That the assessee was not aware the assessment proceedings carried out for AY 2015-16 as the notices sent by the AO on the e-mail of the assessee escaped attention of the assessee and therefore, the case of the assessee remained unrepresented before the AO, resulting into passing of the impugned assessment order ex-parte of the assessee u/s.144 of the Act. When the assessee came to know of the passing of the impugned assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). However, in the course, a delay of „74‟ days in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) has occurred. She has further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. The Ld. AR of the assessee has further submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was not intentional. She has further submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits. However, the assessee couldn‟t represent her case before the AO owing to his facts, as noted above. She has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present her case before the Ld.CIT(A). She has submitted that the AO has made the addition for failure of the assessee to prove the source of funds for the purchase of the property and further that even the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s.54 of the Act. She has further submitted that the assessee can prove the source of the funds and be allowed to furnish the necessary details.

We note that the case of the assessee was remained unrepresented before the AO. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation, though, the assessee had explained that the assessee was not aware of the ongoing assessment proceedings. Hence, considering the rival submissions of both the Ld. Representatives of the parties, in our view, the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee be given an opportunity to present her case before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is hereby condoned, the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after giving proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present her case and furnish the necessary details and evidences. The Ld.CIT(A), if so deem fit, can call for remand report from the AO in respect of evidences, if any, furnished by the assessee, thereafter, to decide the appeal of the assessee by way of speaking order.

In the result, ITA No.2952/Mum/2026 filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Since we have set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restored the quantum appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A), the findings in the quantum appeal, will have bearing on this penalty appeal also. Therefore, this matter in the penalty appeal is also restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to be decided along with quantum appeal of the assessee.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.