CHARU KARTIK,UNITED KINGDOM vs. ITO, WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: J (SMC) BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3005 and 3006/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assmt. Years: 2010-11 and 2012-13 ITO, WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI CHARU KARTIK IT-OFFICE, VASI RAILWAY 2 IVY CLOSE, COLCHESTER, STATION BUILDING, CO4 6DJ, UNITED KINGDOM, Vs. UNITED KINGDOM-999999, MUMBAI UNITED KINGDOM MUMBAI-400703, MAHARASHTRA (��थ� Respondent) (अपीलाथ� Appellant) Permanent Account Number of AMXPK6630M Assessee: िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee represented Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA by: (Virtually Present) राज� व �ारा/Revenue represented by: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 12.05.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 03.08.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders of CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078202318(1) dated 04.07.2025 and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081827254(1) dated 16.10.2025 passed against assessment orders u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income- 1 tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3), Mumbai, for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 3005/MUM/2026 for AY 2010-11 1) Because the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Ld Commissioner (Appeal), NFAC under section 250 of the Act is bad in law as the same has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of section 250 of the Income Tax Act 2) Because the impugned order passed by the Ld CIT (Appeals), NFAC under section 250 of the Act is bad in law as the same has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of sub section (6) of section 250 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant were not disposed off 3) Because upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Ld Commissioner (Appeal), NFAC under section 250 of the Act is bad in law as the Ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal and not considered the submissions filed by the Appellant. The act of the Ld CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice and is in gross violation of provisions of sub- section (2), sub-section (4) and sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. 4) Because upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the appellant denies its liability in terms of Notice dated 30.03.2017 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as there was no escapement of any income which is chargeable to tax within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act 5) Because upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the appellant denies its liability in terms of Notice dated 30.03.2017 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as no reasons to believe were recorded by the Ld Assessing officer before issue of Notice under section 148 of the Act nor these reasons were mentioned in impugned assessment order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Ld assessing officer under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. Also, the proceedings have been initiated in gross violation of provisions of section 151 of the Income Tax Act. Section 151 mandates the sanction, approval of Principal Commissioner. The section restricts the issuance of Notice under section 148 of the Act after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner of Chief Commissioner OR Principal Commissioner of Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer. In the present c 6) Because upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the Assessment order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Assessing officer, is bad in law as the Ld Assessing officer has passed an order making an unwarranted addition of Rs. 35,00,000 on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act without properly ascertaining the facts of the case, without bringing any material on record and without having done any inquiry. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate and provide any finding on this ground raised by the appellant. 7. 7. The appellant craves leave to add OR alter one OR more ground(s) during the course of hearing of appeal.

ITA No. 3006/MUM/2026 for AY 2012-13 1) Because upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Ld Commissioner Appeal, NFAC under section 250 of the Act is bad in law as the Ld CITA has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The act of the Ld CITA is against the principle of natural justice and is in gross violation of provisions of subsection 2, subsection 4 and subsection 6 of section 250 of the Act. 2) Because upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the appellant denies its liability in terms of Notice dated 30.03.2019 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as there was no escapement of any income which is chargeable to tax within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 3) Because upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the appellant denies its liability in terms of Notice dated 30.03.2019 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as the said notice has been issued in violation of the limitation prescribed under section 149 of the Act. The notice has been issued after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore could have been issued only if the case fell within clause b of subsection 1 of section 149 of the Act. However, no reasons have been recorded by the Assessing Officer showing that income chargeable to tax exceeding Rs. 1,00,000 had escaped assessment so as to bring the case within the ambit of section 1491b of the Act. In absence of recording of such satisfaction the notice issued under section 148 is barred by limitation and therefore the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4) Because upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the appellant denies its liability in terms of Notice dated 30.03.2019 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as the proceedings have been initiated in gross violation of provisions of section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The section restricts the issuance of Notice under section 148 of the Act after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner of Chief Commissioner OR Principal Commissioner of Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer. In the present case there is no such approval sanction satisfaction of the Principal Commissioner on reasons recorded by the Assessing officer. 5) Because, on the facts and in the overall circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 6,84,923, being the difference between the purchase consideration of the property and the home loan amount Rs. 37,47,474 minus Rs. 33,00,000 is equal to Rs. 4,47,474 along with the stamp duty paid amounting to Rs. 2,37,449. The said addition has been made without appreciating the fact that the payments towards the property were made from the bank account of the appellant and the bank account of her husband, Mr. Kartik Taneja, and thereafter the balance amount was financed through a housing loan taken from HDFC Bank. Further, the Ld. CITA has erred in not adjudicating upon and not providing any finding on this ground raised by the appellant

6) Because, on the facts and in the overall circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 7,61,859 on account of alleged fixed deposits in HDFC Bank Rs. 3,00,000, cash deposits in Axis Bank account Rs. 4,00,000 and interest income Rs. 61,859 from the said bank accounts, without properly appreciating the facts on record. The Ld. Assessing Officer failed to consider that the Appellant had made only one fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 in HDFC NRE Account Account No. 10281560000172 during the year under consideration and no other fixed deposit was made. Further, the cash deposit was only Rs. 2,00,000, which was made out of the proceeds from sale of gold jewellery and not Rs. 4,00,000 as alleged. Moreover, the actual interest income from the said bank accounts amounted to Rs. 41,707 only. The Ld. CITA failed to adjudicate and provide any finding on this ground raised by the appellant. 7) Because the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Ld Commissioner Appeal, NFAC under section 250 of the Act is bad in law as the same has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 8) Because the impugned order passed by the Ld CIT Appeals, NFAC under section 250 of the Act is bad in law as the same has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of sub section 6 of section 250 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant were not disposed off.

3.1. In addition to the above, we note that there is a delay before the Tribunal of 226 days in filing the present appeal. Since the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is dated 04.07.2025, taking into account the time limit available for filing the appeal before the Tribunal of 60 days, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 03.09.2025. However, the same has been filed on 18.03.2026. From Form No. 36, we note that the date of service or communication of the order mentioned by the assessee is 08.03.2026. It is because of mentioning this date, registry could not take note of delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, since the date of filing is 18.03.2026, even though the first appellate order is dated 04.07.2025.

3.2. Furthermore, the impugned assessment order is an ex parte order for which the re-assessment proceedings were initiated based on AIR details whereby, assessee had purchased an immovable property of Rs.35 lakhs on 08.10.2009. In the impugned re- assessment order, in para-1, it is mentioned that assessee has not filed her return of income for the year under consideration. Ld. Assessing Officer had issued statutory notices u/s. 142(1) both, physically and through email but no compliance was made by the assessee. Despite various notices/letters/reminders issued on the assessee by the ld. Assessing Officer, they remained unattended. Ld. Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274 show causing the assessee as to why penalty should not be levied for such non-compliance. To this effect also there were no compliances and thus, a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed u/s. 271(1)(B) vide order dated 04.12.2017. Ld. Assessing Officer continued to issue show cause notice giving opportunity to the assessee to make good her compliance. However, there was status quo at the end of the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer was thus compelled to complete the assessment ex parte u/s. 144 on the basis of the details available on record. He determined the total income at Rs. 35 lakhs by treating it as unexplained investment u/s. 69 and thus, completed the assessment. He also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271F since assessee did not file her return of income as required u/s. 139(1).

4.1. Be that as it may, in the said petition for condonation, the reason given for delay is that assessee is a Non Resident Indian (NRI) settled in United Kingdom since 2006. During the relevant year, she was residing outside India and therefore, was not aware of the ex parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of lack of any communication in this regard. It is further mentioned by her that she returned to India to attend marriage of a relative on 07.03.2026 and this order came to her notice on the very next day, i.e., on 08.03.2026 when she met her consultant to discuss about the income-tax matter. It was only then that she logged in to the IT Portal to come to know about the order passed by ld. CIT(A). In the said application, it is mentioned that passport evidencing the date of visiting India is enclosed as Annexure-A, however, the same is not available in the said application. On the basis of this aforesaid reasoning, condonation of delay is sought by the assessee.

4.2. Reliance is placed on several judicial precedents and prayer is made that there was sufficient cause to consider condonation of delay. A notarized affidavit, dated 18.03.2026 is also attached to the said application wherein the contents are the same as contained in the application. In the affidavit, even the case laws relied upon are quoted.

5.1. The reasons so mentioned as “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay are general in nature and do not justify the prayer so made. From the above factual position, at all stages right from not filing of return, not attending assessment proceedings, not attending the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and then, coming up before the Tribunal with delayed filing, without giving any justifiable reasons, the habitual conduct of the assessee is evident which cannot be countenanced. Judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee do not support the case of the assessee given the afore stated factual matrix. The habitual conduct of the assessee is nothing but pseudo compliance made at various stages of the proceedings and nothing more. When assessee has not come up with any submission even before the Tribunal by filing paper book to demonstrate with corroborative evidence, as to how the addition is not justified, we fail to understand how the interest of justice would be served and prejudice caused to the assessee be mitigated when we remit the matter back to the authorities below.

5.2 We find that the reasons cited by the assessee are vague and general, more particularly when the assessee has the awareness of raising her grievance at the appropriate appellate stages by filing the appeals. This shows her knowledge and understanding for the recourse available to her under the provisions of the Act, though no effective compliances are made except for raising the grievance by filing the appeals. For the reliance placed on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, the said judgment has to be understood in proper perspective along with factual matrix of each case. In this judgment, Hon'ble Court held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by filing an appeal late and where the considerations of substantial justice are pitted against technical considerations, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred inasmuch as the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It is significant to note that the said case arose out of an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where the compensation was enhanced to 800%. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court as there was a delay of mere four days. Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the delay deserves condonation.

6.1. After taking into consideration the overall conduct of the assessee as narrated above at all the stages, we do not find any justifiable reason to condone the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The said delay is not condoned. We also do not find any merit in remitting the matter back to the file of authorities below, even if the delay before the Tribunal is condoned for de novo meritorious adjudication as assessee has not come up before us by furnishing documentary evidences which would support her case when remitted back to the authorities below.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 03 August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Pawan Singh) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 03 August, 2026 MP, Sr.P.S. Copy to: 1 The Appellant 2 The Respondent 3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4 Guard File 5 CIT BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai