JAYSHREE JAISING SURVE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2741/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 June 2026AY 2015-20163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without affording an effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- as undisclosed short-term capital gain. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of about six months, citing her husband's hospitalization as the reason.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and whether the CIT(A) provided an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45,Section 250,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL & HON’BLE JAGADISH

Pronounced: 29.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 08.01.2026, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2015-16.

ITA No.2741/MUM/2026 Jayshree Jaising Surve

2.

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (in short, "the AO") vide assessment order dated 07.03.2024 made an addition of Rs.60,00,000/- as undisclosed short-term capital gain under section 45 of the Act.

3.

Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved by the said addition, preferred the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. However, there was a delay of about six months in filing the said appeal. Before the Ld. Commissioner, the Assessee explained the reasons for the delay by submitting that her husband had been hospitalized during the period, within which the appeal was required to be filed. It was contended that the Assessee's entire attention remained focused on the treatment and prolonged hospitalization of her husband, as the issue involved his survival. Consequently, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time, which also resulted in subsequent non-compliances.

4.

We have perused the impugned order and observe that, as recorded by the Ld. Commissioner in paragraph 6.6, that the Assessee had neither filed any affidavit nor produced any documentary evidence in support of the reasons assigned for the delay. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner, after considering various judicial precedents, including the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) AIR 1353] and Basawaraj & Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (Civil Appeal No. 6947 of 2013, decided on 22.08.2013), held that the Assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine under section 249(3) read with section 250 of the Act.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Though notice of hearing was

ITA No.2741/MUM/2026 Jayshree Jaising Surve

issued to the Assessee on 26.05.2026, neither any adjournment was sought nor did anyone appear on her behalf. However, it is a fact the impugned order has been passed ex parte and that the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal without affording an effective opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, as prima facie appears from the impugned order, we also observe that the issues involved in the appeal remain to be adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner in their proper perspective and in proper manner. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we are inclined to afford one more opportunity to the Assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

aaaa Order pronounced in the open court on 29.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 45

All 1,374 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →