SANJAY PRABHAKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K(SMC)” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 2695/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Sanjay Prabhakar, B-2, 501, Income Tax Officer, Ward Blue Glaxy, C.S. Road, Anand 42(1)(5), Kautilya Bhavan, Nagar, Dahisar East, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra. – 400068, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AIJPP 1953 G Appellant Respondent

: Shri. Sanjay Prabhakar (A’s in Assessee by Person) : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR. DR) Revenue by

Date of Hearing : 13/05/2026 Date of pronouncement : 29/06/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 19.05.2022, passed by the learned, Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], for Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y’), 2016-17, raising following grounds:

Sanjay Prabhakar 2 ITA No. 2695/MUM/2026

providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 22,31,840/- claimed by the appellant u/s 54 of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise.” 2. At the outset, it was noticed that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 1,315 days. In support of the prayer for condonation of delay, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances which prevented him from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The substance of the explanation furnished is that the assessee had been single- handedly attending to and caring for his aged mother, who was suffering from multiple serious medical ailments and had undergone several medical procedures and hospitalisations over the years. It has been averred that owing to her deteriorating health condition, particularly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, the assessee remained continuously engaged in arranging medical treatment, hospitalisation, follow-up care and day-to-day assistance, resulting in severe mental stress and emotional hardship. It has further been stated that the assessee became aware of the impugned appellate order only upon examining the income-tax portal after receiving a demand intimation in January 2026, whereupon he immediately consulted his tax advisor and thereafter filed the present appeal without any further delay. The relevant part of affidavit is reproduced as under:-

Sanjay Prabhakar 3 ITA No. 2695/MUM/2026

“ 2. I say that Assessment Order dated 15.12.2018 for AY 2016-17 was passed in my case where a disallowance of claim under section 54 was made. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, I preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals). The said appeal was filed on 15.01.2019. 3. I say that I received an intimation notice regarding demand raised for AY 2025- 26 dated 6th January 2026. While checking the same on the Income-tax demand outstanding for AY 2016-17. On further portal, I came across examination of the details available on the portal I came to know that an parte order had been passed for AY 2016-17 dated 19.05.2022. 4. I say that my mother Mrs. Manorama Mandal has under gone multiple surgeries in regards to Incisional Appendicitis (Hernia). She also had get acute lumbar puncture test in 2017. Copy of the supporting documents in this regard are enclosed as Annexure 1. 5. I say, considering her advanced age of above 80 years and her recurring medical complications, her health condition remained extremely fragile and she required constant care, supervision, emotional support and regular medical attention at all times. 6. I say that I have been single-handedly taking care of my mother for several years and have been solely responsible for managing her treatment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, het routine medical check-ups and consultations were severely disrupted, which further aggravated her medical condition and increased my responsibilities manifold. 7. I say that since the year 2022 onwards, I have been under continuous mental stress, anxiety and emotional hardship on account of her deteriorating health condition and the constant fear and uncertainty regarding her wellbeing. 8. I say that owing to her fragile health condition, I had to continuously accompany her for various medical examinations including X-rays, ultra- sonographies, blood tests and consultations with doctors from time to time. Copy of the supporting documents in this regard is enclosed as Annexure 2. 9. In December 2024, she was advised to undergo ultrasonography of the abdomen and pelvis. Copy of the supporting documents in this regard is enclosed as Annexure 3. 10. Thereafter, her health deteriorated significantly and I had to get her admitted to the hospital on 25.02.2025, where she was diagnosed with Acute Pancreatitis. Copy of the supporting documents in this regard is enclosed as Annexure 4. 11. I say that during this entire period je from year 2022 to till date. I remained fully occupied with arranging medical treatment, hospitalization, follow-up care and attending to her day-to-day medical needs, due to which I was unable to properly attend to my taxation matters and legal proceedings.

Sanjay Prabhakar 4 ITA No. 2695/MUM/2026

Sanjay Prabhakar 5 ITA No. 2695/MUM/2026

appellate authority. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte and upheld the assessment order primarily on account of non-compliance by the assessee. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-

“5. The appellant was provided opportunity of being heard by way of issue hearing notice dated 26-02-2020 requesting the appellant to file written submissions and documents electronically through incometaxindia.efiling website on or before 05-03-2020 for necessary consideration while disposing this appeal. As there was no reply, another hearing notice dated was issued on 24-12-2020 asking the appellant to make the submissions on or before 30-12-2020. The appellant again failed to respond to this notice and to another hearing notice issued on 07-12-2021 fixing the hearing on 14-12-2021 as well. The appellant again failed to respond to this notice and to another hearing notice issued on 23- 02-2022 fixing the hearing on 04-03-2022 as well. Thereafter, a final notice was issued on 08-03-2022 calling for submissions on or before 21-03-2022. However, the appellant has not submitted any written submission till date. 6. Though the appellant claims that the AO was not justified in making such assessment, he never put forth any reasons for claiming so. Even during current appellant proceedings, the appellant never came forward with his explanation to the grounds mentioned by the appellant despite being offered number of opportunities through hearing notices issued by this office. The onus lies on the appellant to prove his case before seeking relief in the appellate proceedings. On this front, appellant miserably failed. In these circumstances, it is deemed fit not to interfere with the assessment made by the AO. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is upheld and grounds are dismissed.” 5. Having considered the entirety of the facts, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) could not be effectively prosecuted owing to the exceptional circumstances narrated in the affidavit. More importantly, we find that the impugned appellate order does not contain any independent adjudication of the substantive issue involved in the appeal, namely, the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54 of the Act. The appeal appears to have been dismissed substantially

Sanjay Prabhakar 6 ITA No. 2695/MUM/2026

for want of prosecution without a reasoned examination of the claim on merits. 5.1 It is trite law that the first appellate authority, being a quasi- judicial forum vested with co-terminus powers with that of the Assessing Officer, is obliged to adjudicate the issues arising in appeal on merits and by way of a speaking order. The right of appeal is a valuable statutory right, and an assessee should not ordinarily be denied adjudication on merits where sufficient cause for non-appearance is demonstrated. 5.2 In the facts of the present case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) shall afford the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, consider all submissions and evidences that may be placed on record, and thereafter pass a speaking and reasoned order dealing with the issues raised in the appeal on their own merits. 5.3 We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act, and all contentions available to both parties are left open for consideration by the Ld. CIT(A).

Sanjay Prabhakar 7 ITA No. 2695/MUM/2026

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 29/06/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai