REETUBALA VISHNU SONI,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a tenant of Mr. Amrish Shah in respect of Room No. 101, 1st Floor, Shreeji Krupa Bhuvan, Chandanwadi, Chira Bazaar Road, Mumbai. Subsequently, the landlord sold the said property to the tenant, and in consideration thereof, the assessee paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the landlord. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued for reopening the assessment. The Ld. AO completed the reassessment by making an addition of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of payment made to the owner for transfer of the flat and further made an addition of Rs.15,48,000/- under the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 134 days. The Ld. CIT(A), however, held that the assessee had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal in limine. Being aggrieved, the assessee has preferred an appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was occasioned due to a medical emergency faced by the assessee. In support of the said contention, the Ld. AR furnished a notarized affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The affidavit, duly executed by the assessee on 16/01/2026, has been placed on record. The relevant extracts of the affidavit are reproduced hereunder: “3. I say that I underwent continuous dental treatment, involving repeated consultations and procedures, due to which I remained under prolonged medical treatment and discomfort. I further state that subsequent to and during the course of the said dental treatment, I suffered from severe headaches and migraine episodes, which required medical treatment and rest, rendering me physically weak and incapable of attending to routine and legal matters. I further state that even as on date, the dental implant continues to adversely affect my health, resulting in persistent headaches and continuous discharge from my ears, for which I remain under medical care.

I say that due to the above overlapping and continuous medical hardships, I was not in a position to properly coordinate, collect, scan, and upload documents or take timely steps for filing and pursuing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

I say that I had explained the delay in Form No. 35 itself. Due to a bona fide misunderstanding, I believed that the explanation furnished therein was sufficient for the purpose of condonation. I also understood the subsequent NFAC notice dated 10.11.2025 primarily to require furnishing of the grounds of appeal, and therefore, medical documents were not uploaded inadvertently, without any intention to withhold material evidence.” The Ld. AR further stated that the appeal order was passed on the ground of limitation without considering the merit of the case. The Ld. AR prayed to restore the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication denovo.

The Ld. DR supported the orders of the revenue authorities and contended that the assessee had filed the appeal with a delay and no proper explanation for condoning the delay was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). It was argued that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly rejected the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed that the impugned appellate order be upheld.

We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee is individual and during the impugned assessment year the assessee purchased the property from her landlord by paying amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. Further, the Ld. AO found that there is a difference in between the stamp duty value and actual purchase value which comes to amount of Rs.15,48,000/-. The Ld. AO added back the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.15,48,000/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 134 days. The assessee placed the reason before the Ld. CIT(A) that the delay was caused due to the medical illness of the assessee. During the hearing before the Bench the assessee submitted the condonation petition along with a notarized affidavit with explanation of delay in filing of appeal. In support of the assessee’s submission the medical documents are duly placed in the file. We find that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Without expressing any view and merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for limited purpose of adjudicating the assessee’s petition for condonation of delay, adopting a lenient view and justice oriented approach. The assessee is directed to place before the Ld. CIT(A) a detailed explanation for delay, duly supported by the notarized affidavit and relevant evidences. Needless to say that assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside proceeding.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.397/M/2026 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2026