ANUPAMA RAJ ANANTHAKRISHNAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2433/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 July 2026AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee being an NRI and facing issues with communication. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal in limine was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2016-17. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information about an immovable property purchase. The assessee failed to comply with notices, and the assessment was completed ex parte, treating the investment as unexplained.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2433/MUM/2026 (AY: 2016-17) Anupama Raj Ananthakrishnan vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(1), B68, 3rd Main KEB, Layout BTM 1st Pratishtha Bhavan, 3rd & 4th Floors, Stage, Bangalore South, 101, M. K. Road -400020. Dharmaram College S.O, Bangalore- 560029. PAN/GIR No: AGVPR4343J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sandeep Chalapathy (virtually appear) Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR) Date of Hearing 16.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 24.07.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the National Faceless

Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 27.11.2025 for the assessment year

(AY) 2016-17.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

That the notice u/s 148 is bad in law as the same is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer and therefore, assessment order is also liable to be quashed.

3.

That the notice u/s 148 is bad in law as the same is barred by limitation since the said limitation expired on 31.03.2022.

4.

That the entire proceedings are bad in law and as the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was neither issued nor served on the appellant

5.

That the learned lower authorities erred in law and facts in deciding the assessment and first appeal proceedings ex-parte for non- prosecution and non-response.

6.

That the learned lower authorities ought to have appreciated the fact that faceless assessment and appeal proceedings are new to the assessees and therefore, some non-compliance should not result to huge demand. 7. That the learned lower authorities ought to have provided an opportunity of being heard by way of conducting physical hearing with physical communication for the purpose of conducting effective proceedings.

8.

That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 90,00,000 as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act for not explaining the investment in immovable property.

9.

That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 90,00,000 as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act even though the funds are made available from the husband which is evident from the bank statement of the appellant and such statement is a material which is already available on record.

10.

Without prejudice to the above grounds, that the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making an addition u/s 69 of the Act even though the property is registered in the name of the appellant but the investments is made by the appellant's husband

11.

That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not bringing any materials on record for proposing to make an addition.”

3.

There is a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It has

been submitted that the assessee has been residing outside India for several years

and, being unaware of the appellate procedure, could not file the appeal within the prescribed time. It has further been stated that the earlier consultant failed to provide proper legal advice regarding the appropriate remedy and that the assessment had been completed ex parte, as notices were issued to an old e-mail ID which was no longer accessible to the assessee. Accordingly, the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond her control, and, therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. Therefore, there was genuine reason and sufficient cause for non-filing of appeal within time and, hence, in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR has not opposed the prayer of the appellant for condonation of delay. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others-167 ITR 471 (SC), where it was held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay, we condone the delay. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee did not file return of

income for the AY 2016-17. Based on information available on the Insight Portal

that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of

Rs.90,00,000/- during the relevant previous year, the AO initiated reassessment

proceedings by passing an order u/s 148A(d) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act.

However, the assessee neither filed the return of income nor complied with the

subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and other communications calling

upon her to explain the source of investment in the property. The AO observed

that despite affording several opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish any

documentary evidence explaining the source of investment in the immovable

property. Accordingly, the assessment was completed ex parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144

and 144B of the Act by treating the investment of Rs.90,00,000/- in the property

as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The total income was

assessed at Rs.90,00,000/- and consequential penalty proceedings were also

initiated

5.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A).

The appeal, however, was filed with a delay of 255 days. The assessee submitted

that she was residing in the UAE, was unaware of the assessment proceedings

and the assessment order, and that the departmental communications were not

effectively received by her as they were sent to the registered e-mail ID. It was

further contended that the investment in the immovable property had been

made out of funds received from her husband, an NRI, through banking channels

and, therefore, the addition u/s 69 of the Act was unjustified. The CIT(A),

however, observed that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for

the delay by filing any supporting documentary evidence. It was held that the notices and communications had been issued to the registered e-mail ID

furnished by the assessee and that no satisfactory explanation had been offered

for the belated filing of the appeal. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. and Lanka

Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P., the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay of 255

days and, consequently, dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the

grounds on merits.

6.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the

Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing

the appeal in limine on the ground of delay without appreciating the bona fide

reasons explained by the assessee. He reiterated the submission made before the

CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee is an NRI and did not received the notices

or the order due to which there was delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). It was

further submitted that the investment in the immovable property was made out

of funds received from her husband, who is also an NRI, through normal banking

channels. Therefore, the addition of Rs.90,00,000/- made u/s 69 of the Act was

not sustainable. The Ld. AR pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the

CIT(A) may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of CIT(A) for

adjudication on merits.

6.1 The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the AO and the

CIT(A). However, he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A)

for fresh adjudication on merit.

7.

We have heard both sides and perused the materials on record. We find that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the delay of 255 days in filing the appeal was not supported by sufficient cause and, therefore, did not adjudicate the issues on merits. We find that there was sufficient cause for not being able to file the appeal on time. We also find that the order is also not as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates that the order must clearly state the specific points for determination, the final decision on each point and the rationale for the decision. Considering the totality of the facts and the discussion made as above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to explain its case on merit. In view of these facts, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit in accordance with law after granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard of the assessee. The ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 8.1 We make it clear that we have not expressed our opinion on merit of the

case, which the CIT(A) shall independently decide as per law.

9.

Since we have set aside the order of CIT(A) and remanded it to his file for

fresh adjudication, the other grounds become academic in nature and do not

require adjudication.

10.

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

Order is pronounced on 24.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 24.07.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →