ZIA SALIM DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1186/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 September 2026AY 2017-1811 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property and the registration of the sale deed occurred in FY 2016-17, while the purchase consideration was allegedly paid in FY 2009-10. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69 and Section 56(2)(vii) due to the difference between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration. The assessee failed to provide evidence to the lower authorities.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned a significant delay in filing the appeal, citing principles of natural justice and the need for substantial justice. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not presented all evidence to the Assessing Officer and therefore remitted the matter back for fresh assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made under Section 69 and Section 56(2)(vii) were justified given the alleged timing of payment versus registration, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 56(2)(vii),Section 139,Section 148,Section 147,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHA

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah
For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj
Hearing: 13.08.2026Pronounced: 15.09.2026

PER : Shri Rakesh Kumar Lodha, Accountant Member: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( herein after called as “Act”) dated 28-05-2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The assessee has raised for grounds of appeal:

1.

On the facts and circumstances & in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal with

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

All 8,928 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →