LATE SHRI HARJIRAM PITHAJI PRAJAPATI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18. The learned CIT(A) declined to condone the delay of 87 days in filing the first appeal and, consequently, dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. Condonation of Delay 2. The Registry has pointed out that the present appeal before us is delayed by 418 days. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of the delay, supported by an affidavit of the legal representative, Smt. Shantidevi Harjiram Prajapati. 3. The learned AR submitted that the legal representative did not have an email address of her own and had, therefore, furnished the email address of one of her relatives, Shri Krishnaramji Prajapati, for receiving communications in relation to the proceedings before the learned CIT(A). The said relative inadvertently failed to inform her about the emails received in connection with the appellate proceedings, including the impugned order dated 30.12.2024. It was submitted that the legal representative became aware of the impugned order only in March 2026, when an ex-employee of her deceased husband’s proprietorship concern received a telephone call from the Income Tax Department in connection with recovery of the outstanding demand. The present appeal was thereafter filed without further avoidable delay. 4. The learned AR further submitted that the legal representative was 66 years of age, had not undergone formal education and was not conversant with income-tax proceedings.

ITA 4589/MUM/2026 LATE SHRI HARJIRAM PITHAJI PRAJAPATI 5. The tax matters had earlier been managed exclusively by her deceased husband. It was, therefore, submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide conduct. 6. The learned DR raised no objection to the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have considered the submissions and perused the condonation petition and the affidavit placed on record. The explanation furnished by the legal representative is supported by the affidavit. The material circumstances, namely, the death of the assessee prior to the passing of the assessment order, the absence of an independent email address with the legal representative, the communication having been sent to the email address of a relative, and the legal representative becoming aware of the impugned order only upon initiation of recovery proceedings in March 2026, have not been controverted by the Revenue. The explanation, considered cumulatively, establishes that the legal representative was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. We do not find any deliberate inaction, mala fide intention or advantage sought to be derived by filing the appeal belatedly. 8. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 253(5) of the Act, the delay of 418 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 9. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Initiation and completion of assessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act is not valid 1. The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as “the NFAC”] erred in upholding the action of the Assessment Unit, Income tax department (hereinafter referred to as “the Assessing Officer”) in determining the net taxable income of the appellant at Rs.45,78,640/- and raising a demand of Rs.45,34,346/- as against net taxable income of Rs.3,72,640/- and ‘Nil’ amount payable as per the return of income filed by the appellant. 2. The NFAC erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating and completing the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act read with section 148 / 148A of the Act, without complying with the applicable provisions of the Act and / or mandated by the binding judicial

ITA 4589/MUM/2026 LATE SHRI HARJIRAM PITHAJI PRAJAPATI precedents, and thus, the assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act ought to be quashed. Addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act - Rs.12,31,000/- 3. The NFAC erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.12,31,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on account of the difference in the consideration fixed for purchase of an immovable property in 2013 and the stamp duty value considered at the time of registration on 30th March, 2016. 4. The NFAC erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the relief claimed by the appellant as per first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which states that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement must be considered for the purpose of the said section. 5. Without prejudice to what has been stated above, the appellant submits that the NFAC erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not referring the valuation of the immovable property to a Valuation Officer as per first proviso to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Addition made under section 69B of the Act - Rs.29,75,000/- 6. The NFAC erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.29,75,000/- by applying the provisions of section 69B of the Act, in law and under the facts and circumstance of the case. 7. The NFAC erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.29,75,000/- under section 69B of the Act on account of the purchase of the immovable property alleging that the amount of said investment is not fully disclosed in books of account for the relevant year and computing tax thereon under section 115BBE of the Act, whereas the payment made to the builder has been shown in the balance sheet furnished during the assessment proceedings. Assessment proceeding is void ab initio since in name of deceased person 8. Without prejudice to what has been stated above, the appellant submits that the notice under section 148 of the Act, consequent assessment proceedings and the assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act are invalid and void ab initio since the said notice has been issued and the said order has been passed in the name of a deceased person. Interest levied under section 234B of the Act - Rs.19,28,366/- 9. The NFAC erred in upholding the levy of interest of Rs.19,28,366/- under section 234B of the Act, as against ‘Nil’ determined under the income-tax return filed by the appellant and the same ought to be deleted. Prayer

ITA 4589/MUM/2026 LATE SHRI HARJIRAM PITHAJI PRAJAPATI 10. The appellant prays that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act as well as assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act be quashed or, alternatively, the Assessing Officer be directed: (i) to delete the addition made of Rs.12,31,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act; (ii) to delete the addition made of Rs.29,75,000/- under section 69B of the Act; (iii) to delete interest levied under section 234B of the Act of Rs.19,28,366/- and to modify the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 11. Each of the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. 12. The appellant craves liberty to add, to alter and/or amend the grounds of appeal as and when given.” 10. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed the original return of income for the year under consideration on 12.01.2018, declaring total income of Rs.3,72,640/-. The assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 29.07.2022. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed the assessment order dated 15.05.2023 under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, making an addition of Rs.12,31,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and a further addition of Rs.29,75,000/- under section 69B of the Act. The total income was accordingly assessed at Rs.45,78,640/-. 11. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 09.09.2023. Since the assessment order was stated to have been served on 15.05.2023, the first appeal was delayed by 87 days. The legal representative of the assessee filed an application seeking condonation of the delay. It was explained that the assessee, Shri Harjiram Pithaji Prajapati, had expired on 16.05.2019, even before the assessment order dated 15.05.2023 was passed. His widow, Smt. Shantidevi Harjiram Prajapati, was required to register herself on the income-tax portal as his legal representative before she could institute the appeal. 12. It was further explained that the legal representative was not conversant with the procedure for filing an income-tax appeal online and had to engage a tax consultant. For registration as legal

ITA 4589/MUM/2026 LATE SHRI HARJIRAM PITHAJI PRAJAPATI representative, she was required to arrange documents which, inter alia, included a succession letter from the bank in which her late husband maintained an account and a letter of indemnity executed on stamp paper, bearing the signatures of herself and her sons and duly notarised. According to the assessee, the time consumed in completing these formalities resulted in the delay of 87 days in filing the first appeal. 13. The learned CIT(A), however, held that the procedural requirement of registering the legal heir did not satisfactorily explain the entire period of delay. The learned CIT(A), therefore, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating any of the grounds on merits. 14. Coming to the merits of the present appeal, the limited question before us is whether, in the peculiar facts of the case, the learned CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 87 days and dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee. 15. We find that the assessment order dated 15.05.2023 was passed after the death of the assessee on 16.05.2019. The appeal was, therefore, required to be instituted by his legal representative. The legal representative was required to register herself on the income-tax portal and arrange the necessary supporting documents, including documents establishing her status as legal heir. The explanation was that obtaining a succession letter from the bank and executing a duly stamped and notarised indemnity involving the legal representative and her sons consumed time. The first appeal was eventually filed on 09.09.2023 with a delay of 87 days. 16. The learned CIT(A) has not disputed either the death of the assessee or the requirement of registering the legal representative on the income-tax portal. The impugned order does not record any finding that the explanation was false, lacking in bona fides or devised merely to overcome limitation. The delay of 87 days cannot, in the circumstances of the present case, be regarded as so inordinate as to warrant foreclosure of the statutory remedy of first appeal, particularly when the appeal contains both

ITA 4589/MUM/2026 LATE SHRI HARJIRAM PITHAJI PRAJAPATI jurisdictional grounds and grounds challenging substantial additions made in the assessment. 17. The learned CIT(A) relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. and Others v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), [2024] 4 S.C.R. 241; 2024 INSC 286. In paragraph 16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “Generally, the courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase ‘sufficient cause’ used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act in order to condone the delay to enable the courts to do substantial justice and to apply law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice.” In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with an extraordinary delay of 5,659 days and found absence of due diligence on the facts of that case. The said decision itself recognises that the expression “sufficient cause” is to receive a liberal construction, though the discretion must be exercised judiciously and cannot be invoked where the litigant is negligent or lacking in bona fides. In the case before us, the delay was only 87 days and arose in the process of a widow taking steps to register herself as the legal representative of her deceased husband and arranging the documents necessary for that purpose. The facts are, therefore, materially distinguishable. 18. In our considered view, the explanation furnished by the legal representative constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) adopted an unduly technical approach without giving due weight to the peculiar circumstances in which the first appeal was required to be instituted. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the impugned order dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. 19. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay of 87 days in filing the first appeal, admit the appeal and adjudicate all the grounds raised by the assessee, including the jurisdictional grounds as well as the grounds on merits, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The assessee shall be 7

ITA 4589/MUM/2026 LATE SHRI HARJIRAM PITHAJI PRAJAPATI afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and permitted to place the relevant documentary evidence on record. The assessee, through the legal representative, is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and comply with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). 20. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the validity of the reassessment proceedings or on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. All the contentions of both sides are kept open for adjudication by the learned CIT(A). 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated 18/08/2026 Soumili, PS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

ITA 4589/MUM/2026 LATE SHRI HARJIRAM PITHAJI PRAJAPATI

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई मु�बई मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai मु�बई