SACHIN KIRTIKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 10.03.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2022 for A.Y. 2015- 16, disregarding the fact that the said notice was issued beyond 6 years from end of relevant assessment year i.e. 31.03.2022 and therefore, it is barred by limitation in view of first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 82,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act, being alleged unexplained investment in property, on the basis that the assessee had not submitted any information regarding the purchase of property, disregarding the written submission filed by the assessee on 27.02.2026 vide acknowledgement no. 478050881270226, explaining in

Sachin Kirtikumar Jain ITA No. 2954/Mum/2026 (AY: 2015-16) detail the impugned transaction, along with documentary evidences such as financial statements, purchase agreement and bank statements reflecting the transaction of purchase consideration. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 82,00,000/- is not sustainable u/s 69 of the Act, as the said investment had been duly recorded in books of accounts and therefore, the pre-requisite for making addition u/s 69 of the Act has not been fulfilled. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal without considering that the said 54 days delay was for bona-fide and genuine reason. 5. The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each of the above grounds without prejudice to one another.” 2. The assessee has raised following additional ground of appeal: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16, disregarding the fact that the said notice was issued beyond 6 years from end of relevant assessment year ie. 31.03.2022 and therefore, it is barred by limitation in view of first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act.”

Sachin Kirtikumar Jain ITA No. 2954/Mum/2026 (AY: 2015-16) 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that assessee has not furnished reasonable cause for delay before ld. CIT(A). There is no finding of ld. CIT(A) either on filing appeal belatedly or on the merits of the case. Even if the delay is condoned in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), the matter should be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue on merit. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that AO passed the assessment order dated 04.03.2024 in making addition on account of unexplained investment of Rs. 82.00 lacs before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal on 28.05.2024. The appeal of assessee was rejected as unadmitted on the ground that delay is not sufficiently explained. Considering the peculiar facts of the case that ld. CIT(A) has not allowed reasonable opportunity to explain the delay, therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with liberty to assessee to file application for condonation of delay in explaining the reasons of such delay. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the explanation of delay and to condone the delay passed order afresh. The ld. CIT(A) is also directed to pass the order afresh on merit by giving opportunity to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) will be at liberty to obtain remand report from Assessing Officer (AO) in the event of filing additional evidence or submission which were not filed before AO. The additional ground of appeal is also restored back to the ld. CIT(A) for his consideration.

Sachin Kirtikumar Jain ITA No. 2954/Mum/2026 (AY: 2015-16) 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 15/07/2026.

/- S/- Sd/- /- Sd/- Sd/ OM PRAKASH KANT PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 15/07/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai