NANDA KISHAN WANE,KALYAN vs. THE ITO WARD 3(2), KALYAN, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3865/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 June 2026AY 2013-20146 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without considering this principle.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal late by 173 days, claiming the assessment order was not properly served. The Assessing Officer had made additions for unexplained investment in property and stamp duty charges under section 147.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the first appeal should have been condoned by the CIT(A) by applying a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 249(3),Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Respondent: Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: E BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 3865/MUM/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/Assmt. Year: 2013-14) Permanent Account Number: AAOPW7703L Nanda Kishan Wane ITO Ward 3(2) A1/1401, Godrej River Side Rani Mansion Near Godrej Hill, Barve Village Kalyan Dombivali Vs. Kalyan East, Kalyan Dombivali Maharashtra-421 301. Maharashtra-421 301. (��थ� Respondent) (अपीलाथ� Appellant)

िनधा�रती�ारा/Assessee represented by: Shri Sunil Talreja, Advocate राज� व�ारा/Revenue represented by: Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger, Sr. DR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 18-June-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 23-June-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre vide DIN & Notice No.: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085226065(1) dated 28.01.2026 passed against the assessment order by NFAC of the Income Tax Department, u/s 147 read with section 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 21.09.2021 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

Assessee has raised as many as seven grounds of appeal, all of which relate to dismissal of the first appeal by ld. CIT(A) in limine without condoning the delay of 173 days in filing the said appeal, resulting into grave injustice. The contention of the assessee is that said delay in filing the first appeal occurred due to reason that the impugned assessment order was never served upon her. She never had any actual or constructive knowledge of passing of the said order as the said order was merely uploaded on the portal of the Department without ensuring its proper and effective service.

3.

Facts of the case are that assessee is a non-filer. Her case was taken up for proceedings under section 147 based on the information received from DIT, System regarding purchase of an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 97,56,000/-. Notice under section 148 was issued on 20.03.2020. Assessee did not file her return in response to the said notice. Ld. AO completed the assessment ex-parte under section 144 by making the addition of Rs. 97,56,000/- as unexplained investment for purchase of immovable property by applying section 69. He also made an addition of Rs. 5,85,360/- by taking 6% of the alleged investment towards stamp duty charges.

3.1. In the statement of facts filed before the ld. CIT(A), it is mentioned that assessee had purchased flat on 14th and 15th floor, Tower A-1, Godrej River Side, Kalyan, jointly with her husband Shri Kishan Mariba Wane and her son Shri Pradeep Kishan Wane, vide agreement dated 9.11.2012. Her husband and son filed their returns of income declaring their respective amounts of investment. Also, there were transfer by way of sale of two flats in Samarth Complex CHS Ltd., Purandhare Colony, Chikanghar, Kalyan West, and at Sun Shine Greens CHS Limited which were jointly held with her husband and son. Sale deeds for both the flats are dated 27.12.2012 and 19.12.2012, respectively. Assessee claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act and contended that because of the said deduction, there was no occasion for her to file the return of income, there been no taxable income.

4.

Ld. CIT(A) noted that there is a delay of 173 days in filing the first appeal for which proper explanation has not been furnished by the assessee. In paragraph 2 of the said order, ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the explanation given by the assessee as mentioned in Form 35, explaining reason for the delay in filing the appeal. In the submission so reproduced by the ld. CIT(A), it is mentioned that the assessee has also placed on record an affidavit explaining reasons for condonation of delay. Relevant facts in this regard have already been narrated by us and therefore, not repeated for the purpose of brevity. Ld. CIT(A) concluded that there is no sufficient cause shown by the assessee as required under section 249(3) of the Act and therefore, appeal was dismissed in limine as not maintainable.

5.

To address the issue in hand before us, we need to delve into the understanding of the expression "sufficient cause". Sub-section 3 of Section 249 contemplates that the CIT(A) may admit an appeal after expiry of relevant period, if he is satisfied that there was a "sufficient cause" for not presenting it within that period. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally.

5.1. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353:

"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 5.2. Similarly, we would like to make reference to authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra). It reads as under:

"Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life- span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Ramesh Lalawat AY 2017-18 Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 6. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is sufficed to say that the Hon'ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice-oriented approach. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, he has a good case to explain, both on the merits as well as on the law, for the claim made by the assessee. He gave an assurance on behalf of the assessee for due compliance, once the matter is restored back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer, for expeditious disposal.

7.

In the given set of facts and circumstances, we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for de novo meritorious adjudication on the issue for which the case was taken up for re-assessment u/s.147 as assessee has explained of having limited literacy and no exposure with technology. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in making all its submissions, so as to comply with the notices for the hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the assessment proceedings. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all the relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23 June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Amit Shukla) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai : Dated: 23.06.2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. CIT-concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →