RUPEN DINESH DOCTOR,VILE PARLE WEST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(3)(3), MUMBAI, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAWAN, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI.

On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that reopening of the 1 assessment under Section 148 of the Act in the case of the appellant is out of jurisdiction improper and contrary to the provisions of the Act It be held that the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are beyond the powers as per the provisions and scheme of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT A has erred in dismissing the appeal for alleged noncompliance without adjudicating the issues on merits thereby passing a nonspeaking order It is submitted that dismissal without affording a final effective and reasonable opportunity of being heard is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice rendering the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CITA has erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without duly appreciating the existence of reasonable and sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the prescribed period The rejection of condonation is arbitrary mechanical and without proper reasoning thereby rendering the impugned order nonspeaking The delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice and the matter be adjudicated on merits. 4. Without prejudice to the foregoing grounds on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition of INR 3500000 by treating the investment in immovable property as unexplained without appreciating that the same was through explained source as being sourced from bona fide loans borrowed funds and income earned and taxed outside India during the period when the Appellant was a non-resident duly supported by documentary evidences the addition having been made without proper enquiry and in disregard of the material on record is arbitrary unsustainable in law and liable to be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in treating the cash deposit of INR 87000 in the bank account as unexplained income The addition having been made without proper enquiry and in disregard of the material on record is arbitrary unjustified and liable to be deleted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in treating the cash deposit of INR 87000 as unexplained income without appreciating that the said amount represents genuine professional receipts duly earned and deposited in the bank account further the Appellants income was below the taxable threshold no 2 return of income was filed and accordingly the addition made is arbitrary unjustified and liable to be deleted. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CITA has erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 2711c without appreciating that the same has been levied merely on the basis of additions made in the assessment without establishing any concealment of income OR furnishing of inaccurate particulars further the penalty has been sustained without adjudicating the matter on merits and in violation of the principles of natural justice and is therefore unsustainable in law and liable to be deleted.” 3. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that there is a delay of 215 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee furnished an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and for the reasons stated therein it is prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted for hearing.

Upon examination of the assessment records, I realized that the principal addition of Rs.35,00,000/- had been made on the allegation that the source of investment in immovable property remained unexplained. However, the property acquisition had substantially been financed through a housing loan obtained from HSBC Bank of Rs. 33,00,000/-. The relevant loan sanction letter demonstrating the source of funds was found out and upon being advised of the position, I was informed that the assessment suffered from serious factual infirmities. 12. Immediately upon becoming aware of the factual and legal position and after collecting the relevant records, I instructed my consultant to prepare and file the present appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal was filed on 03.04.2026 without any further delay. 13. I respectfully submit that the delay has occurred on account of a combination of exceptional circumstances, namely prolonged financial distress, overseas residence, legal and financial proceedings in the UAE, health-related issues, lack of understanding of the consequences of tax proceedings and the subsequent process of regularizing my affairs after returning to India. The delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide intention. 14. I further submit that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), while refusing condonation, recorded that no documentary evidence had been furnished in support of my claim of illness and that no supporting material had been provided. However, documents and supporting materials had already been uploaded along with Form No. 35 itself as accompanying miscellaneous attachments filed electronically on 21-Apr-2018. The appellate record on efiling portal itself contained supporting documents for requesting condonation of delay. Therefore, the conclusion that no supporting material had been furnished appears to have been recorded without considering the material already forming part of the appellate record. 15. I further submit that substantial documentary evidence exists on record demonstrating the source of investment in the property i.e. HSBC housing loan sanction record. Therefore, the additions sustained in the assessment order involve substantial questions of fact requiring adjudication on merits and ought not to be concluded on technical grounds. 16. I submit that the explanation furnished constitutes "sufficient cause" within the meaning of settled law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji has held that a liberal approach should be adopted in matters of condonation where substantial justice is involved. 5 Various judicial authorities have also recognized such bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the litigant as valid grounds for condonation of delay. 17. I submit that I have a bona fide and arguable case on merits and that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned and the matter is adjudicated on merits. On the other hand, refusal to condone the delay would result in grave hardship and denial of an opportunity to place the true facts before the appellate forum.18. I therefore humbly pray that the delay of 243 days in filing the present appeal be condoned in the interest of substantial justice and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits.” 5. On going through the averments made in the affidavit and the reasons explained therein, we find that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the time stipulated. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.