REKHA DILIP AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3508/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 July 2026AY 2014-157 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice and natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with the assessee directed to provide supporting evidence for the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 440 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to domestic violence and personal issues, but failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay without adjudicating on the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits despite the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 56(2)(vii),Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: K (SMC) BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 3508/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year:2014-15) REKHA DILIP AGARWAL INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 15, Anukool Chs Ltd, Sq Leader 23(3)(4) Harminder Singh Road, Seven Piramal Chambers Lalbaug Vs. Bunglow, Versova, Andheri West, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra Mumbai, Maharashtra 400061 400012 अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: ACYPA1509Q

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Shishir adv. ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Ajay Uke Sr. A.R. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 02-Jul-2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of pronouncement: 03-Jul-2026 आदेश / ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), ADDL/JCIT (A) – 10 Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2014-15, date of order 31.01.2026. The impugned order emanated from the order of Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 24(3)(4), Mumbai order passed under section 143(3) of the Act date of order 29.12.2016.

ITA 3508/MUM/2026 REKHA DILIP AGARWAL 2. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:

1.

The impugned order passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A), NFAC is ex facie illegal, and arbitrary, having been passed without proper application of mind and in gross violation of settled legal principles. 2. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay, without appreciating that the delay was supported by sufficient and bona fide cause. 3. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) failed to appreciate that refusal to condone delay defeats substantive justice, and is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in multiple decisions mandating a liberal approach. Reliance is placed on settled legal position laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy and many more. 4. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has acted mechanically and abdicated his quasi-judicial duty by refusing adjudicate the appeal on merits, thereby rendering the appellate remedy illusory. 5. The impugned order is liable to be quashed as the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him, resulting in denial of justice. 6. Without prejudice, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in sustaining / not adjudicating the addition of 31,74,000 under Section 56(2)(vii), which is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts. 7. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the delay caused was due to personal difficulty / domestic issues of the appellant with her then husband. Such issues are very private and traumatic in nature and need not be discussed in detail as expected by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in its order dated 31st January 2026. 8. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there was no mala fide intention to disclose the details of the case and proceedings by the appellant but rather an attempt to maintain her privacy. 9. The appellant has in 2016 faced domestic violence at the hands of her husband which resulted in many fights between him and her. The appellant had filed noncognizable complaint on 24/07/2017 in Versova police station then on 4-5-2018 second non-cognizable complaint came to be filed and finally on 9/5/2018 third Non cognizable complaint came to filed.

ITA 3508/MUM/2026 REKHA DILIP AGARWAL 10. The appellant thereafter on 07/02/2019 filed a criminal complaint before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri Mumbai bearing case no. 223/DV/2018. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has divorced her husband. 11. The appellant thereafter on 07/02/2019 filed a criminal complaint before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri Mumbai bearing case no. 223/DV/2018. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has divorced her husband. 12. It is humbly submitted that Mistake of the counsel cannot be used against the litigant if it's an honest mistake with no malice. 13. Furthermore, the genuineness of the appellant can be seen from the fact that she has already paid more than 15% percent of the penalty. 14. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to serious personal and family circumstances beyond the appellants control and thus due to genuine, unavoidable, and reasonable cause, and not due to negligence or any mala fide intention. 15. The impugned order is passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice, privacy, self-dignity without proper consideration of submissions and evidences.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return by declaring total income of Rs. 8,52,340/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the Ld. AO found that assessee has gained long term capital gains in the property nil by claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act. The assessee sold two residential properties and invested the sale proceeds in residential flat thereby claiming deduction under section 54 on the capital gain arising from sale proceeds of the property. On perusal of the agreement the Ld. AO found that the market value of the property is 1,25,24,000/- where as the purchase consideration was Rs.93,50,000/- so the application under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act is duly attracted to assessee and accordingly the difference of stamp duty value and the set forth value amount to Rs. 31,74,000/- was added back with the total income of the assessee. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal 3

ITA 3508/MUM/2026 REKHA DILIP AGARWAL before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 440 days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitations. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

Ld. AR argued and stated that the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with delay of 440 days. The assessee submitted the reasons for explaining the delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by reply dated 25.06.2025. The said reply is noted in the appellate order at page no. 5 which is reproduced as below:

1.

The assessee has filed an appeal in Form 35, along with the prescribed fees and relevant enclosures. (Annexure-1) 2. With reference to the above case there was a delay in filing the appeal due to the personal family issues. The appellant has been facing problems of domestic violence from her husband since a long time. Due to such violence the appellant had also filed a police case against the spouse for the same. There are many photographs and other documentary evidences of the police case filed with the appellant which cannot be uploaded but produced before the Hon’ble Appeal during the time of hearing. Also the documents related to the returns filed and the assessment proceedings were with the spouse of the appellant, which were received by the appellant recently. Due to such issue the appeal could not be filed on time. Enclose herewith letter for condonation of delay. (Annexure-2). 3. The assessee has paid a Self-Assessment Tax of Rs. 1,25,600/- at the time of filing the return, with Challan serial no. 00002 and BSR Code 6360064, dated 10.02.2015. The demand was NIL at the time of filing. Additionally, she has made several other payments for the relevant

ITA 3508/MUM/2026 REKHA DILIP AGARWAL assessment year. The statement of Form 26AS is enclosed herewith. (Annexure-3).”

5.

The Ld. AR fairly conceded that the assessee was unable to file an affidavit or any supporting evidence to substantiate her claim of having suffered domestic violence, which was stated to be the reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to afford the assessee one more reasonable opportunity of hearing.

6.

The Ld. DR supported the orders of the revenue authorities and submitted that, in the absence of any documentary evidence establishing sufficient cause for the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee filed her return of income declaring Nil long-term capital gains after claiming exemption under section 54 of the Act on account of the purchase of a new residential flat. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the agreed purchase consideration of the new property was Rs.99,37,300/-, whereas the stamp duty valuation was Rs.1,25,24,000/-. Accordingly, the difference of Rs.31,74,000/- was brought to tax under the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 440 days. The explanation furnished for the delay was that the assessee had suffered domestic violence and, therefore, was unable to file the appeal within the period prescribed under section 249 of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no "sufficient cause" had been established for condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Before us, the

ITA 3508/MUM/2026 REKHA DILIP AGARWAL Ld. AR candidly admitted that the assessee had not filed any affidavit or supporting evidence to substantiate the claim of domestic violence. Nevertheless, it was submitted that the appeal had been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation without any adjudication on the merits of the case. The Ld. AR further undertook that the assessee would file the necessary affidavit and supporting documents before the Ld. CIT(A) in support of the application for condonation of the delay of 440 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice as well as the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present her case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee shall file the requisite affidavit and supporting evidence in support of the application for condonation of delay, and the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue of limitation as well as the appeal, if admitted, in accordance with law after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the matter independently and uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments so that the appeal may be disposed of expeditiously.

ITA 3508/MUM/2026 REKHA DILIP AGARWAL 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no. 3508/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd July 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 03/07/2026 ANKIT, PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →