MANSI MOHAN SARTANDEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3642/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 August 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and also the delay before the ITAT, citing reasonable cause and the interest of substantial justice. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay before the CIT(A) and subsequently before the ITAT. The assessee cited reasons like election duty and a daughter's severe illness for the delays. The CIT(A) had rejected the condonation of delay without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and ITAT should be condoned. Whether the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on account of stamp duty difference should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

Pronounced: 12/08/2026

PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, NFAC, Delhi, dated 28.08.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant respectfully submits that the learned Assessing Officer has, in the order under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, erred on the following grounds (each ground is without prejudice to the other): 1. Ground No. 1: Rejection of Condonation of Delay 1.1. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of approximately 95 days 1.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay was due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. 1.3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) did not consider that the relevant period fell during the COVID-19 pandemic and the appellant was continuously engaged in election duty for nearly two years 1.4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that due to the heavy volume of official communications, the relevant email/intimation was inadvertently overlooked. 1.5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not following the settled principle that matters should be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds. 1.6. The order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) rejecting condonation of delay is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. 2. Ground No. 2: Addition under Section 69 (Unexplained Investment) 2.1. The learned Assessing Officer (AO) erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 30,17,250/- as unexplained investment in house property under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. 2.2. The learned AO failed to properly consider the submissions, explanations, and evidences furnished by the appellant explaining the source of investment 2.3. The addition has been made without conducting proper inquiry or verification and merely on assumptions and presumptions. 2.4. The action of the learned AO is arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.5. The addition made is excessive and liable to be deleted. 3. Ground No. 3: Addition under Section 56(2)(vii) (b) (Stamp Duty Difference)

3.1. The learned AO erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 5,92,750/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, treating the difference between purchase value and stamp duty value of property as income from other sources. 3.2. The learned AO failed to appreciate the submissions and explanations provided by the appellant.” 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the appeal is filed with a delay of 152 days and the assessee filed a petition along with affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay, which were beyond his control, and therefore prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted. The content of the affidavit are as under:

“10. It is most respectfully stated that, on perusing the order by Hon'ble CIT(A) it was understood that, the request for condonation of delay has been rejected by the Hon'ble CIT(A) and the matter was not adjudicated on merits where the matter is factual. 11. Upon realizing this fact, I approached another CA and requested help for the filing of this appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. But there was delay to approach another CA due to severe illness of my daughter since January 2024 onwards. 12. It is Humbly stated that, from January 2024 onwards my daughter was suffering from Eye Site problem, excessive Dizziness and Retina problem. She was hospitalized frequently for the period 09.01.2024 to March 2024 and treatment was going on up to March 2025. 13. I further state that finally the surgery for her Teared Retina was conducted in March 2025 and again she was admitted at Bhatiya Hospital for "Optic Neuritis" in right eye for steroid treatment in September 2025. This treatment is still going on and the medication is to be continued up to December 2026, as per the Retina Surgeon's instructions. (Medical Reports and Consultation papers are annexed herewith as annexure 2) 14. The delay for approaching before Hon'ble ITAT was beyond my control due to frequent visits to various hospitals for daughter's Eye site problem from January 2024 to March 2026 which, Hon'ble authority will consider sympathetically.”

4.

Considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and on perusal of the petition filed by the assessee along with the affidavit, we find that there is a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within time. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted.

5.

Ld. Counsel further submitted that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 95 days, which was mainly due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, it was prayed that the delay before the learned CIT(A) may also be condoned. The petition for condonation of delay dated 27.03.2026 are reproduced as under:

“3. There was a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A) of 95 days which was mainly due to bonafide and unavoidable circumstances. During the relevant period, I was Working for Mumbai Municipal corporation as a junior auditor and I was deputed on Election duty from 04.06.2022 to13.06.2024, as Officer on special duty in 168, Chandivali Assembly Constituency (The Appointment order is exhibited herewith as annexure 1). 4. This election duty was very hectic and some times there was no specific office timing for day-to-day work. Sometimes we were called on the duty at early morning by 7.30 and used to complete the task by late evening. Meanwhile the online meetings from collector of Mumbai or his subordinate offices were conducted and many email communications were received on my registered email id. 5. I further state that, this duty was of a mandatory nature and involved substantial administrative responsibility, frequent correspondence, and continuous engagement with official communications. 6. I further state that, owing to the volume and frequency of official emails and communications received, in connection with election duties, there existed a reasonable likelihood of certain communications being inadvertently overlooked. In the present case, the electronic intimation pertaining to the assessment notices and order might have escaped my attention amidst the large influx of official correspondence.

7.

I further submit that, the delay was neither deliberate nor occasioned by negligence or inaction, but was purely inadvertent and attributable to circumstances beyond my control. 8. I further state that, when a letter was received for recovery of demand then I realized that, the assessment order has been passed, and I immediately followed up with the CA, who then downloaded the order and provided me the same. 9. I further state that the appeal was filed before Hon'ble CIT(A) along with the request for condonation of delay by 95 days.”

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A).

7.

Coming to the merits of the addition, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment made addition in respect of the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the market value of the property of which the assessee was a co-owner. The addition was made by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Ld. Counsel submitted that in respect of the 50% share belonging to the assessee's husband, the issue was examined during the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and an order was passed on 22.05.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 accepting the transaction and no addition was made in respect of the difference in valuation u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in the hands of the assessee’s husband. Therefore, it was submitted that the addition be deleted.

8.

Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Since the learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merits, we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The issue is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A).

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/08/2026

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 12/08/2026 Prabhat Copy to: MANSI MOHAN SARTANDEL, 201B/8075 KANNAMWAR NAGAR 1 VIKHROLI EAST MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400083, MAHARASHTRA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(2)(4), 2 MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →