SHWETA NARENDRA SHIVATARKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

These appeals arises out of the assessment order dated 17.08.2023 passed under Section 147, 144 and 144B of the Act, the penalty order dated 26.07.2024 passed under Section 270A of the Act, and the penalty order dated 26.07.2024 passed under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act. Since all the appeals emanates from the respective orders passed by the Assessing Officer under

Coming to the ITA No. 1719/Mum/2026, it is observed that the Assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on 09.10.2025 challenging the assessment order dated 05.03.2024 passed under Sections 147, 144 and 144B of the Act, however, with a delay of 523 days.

In support of the request for condonation of delay, the Assessee submitted before the Ld. Commissioner that she did not receive the notices issued during the assessment proceedings, as the e-mail address on which such notices were served was not operative. Consequently, she remained unaware of the proceedings and the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.

The Ld. Commissioner, after considering the explanation furnished by the Assessee, was not inclined to accept the same, as constituting sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

We have heard the parties on the point of limitation and perused the material available on record and carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. From the assessment order, it is evident that the Assessee did not respond to the notices

The Assessee has explained that the notices and assessment order were being sent to the e-mail address of her father, namely shyamshirgoankar1958@gmail.com. It was submitted that her father is a senior citizen suffering from heart-related ailments and had undergone angioplasty/endovascular surgery. Owing to his age and medical condition, he was unable to regularly monitor the said e-mail account and consequently missed the notices and orders communicated therein. As a result, the Assessee remained unaware of the proceedings conducted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee further stated that while filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2025-26 on 26.07.2025, the Assessee’s Chartered Accountant verified the Income-tax Portal and discovered that the assessment as well as penalty proceedings had already been concluded. Upon being so advised, the Assessee engaged another Chartered Accountant for pursuing the appellate remedy, and accordingly the appeals including under consideration being subjected to impugned order in this case, were filed before the Ld. Commissioner on 09.10.2025. Thus, according to the Assessee, the delay in filing the appeal was occasioned by bona fide circumstances beyond her control and was neither intentional nor deliberate. In support of the explanation furnished, the Assessee has also filed a duly sworn affidavit dated 20.04.2026.

Thus, having regard to the reasons furnished by the Assessee and considering the same to be reasonable, bona fide, and satisfactory, we for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, deem it appropriate, to condone the delay in filing the 1st appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in order to maintain parity and balance, subject depositing a sum of

Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the assessment order has substantially been passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act, owing to partial compliance by the Assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Prima facie, the additions made by the Assessing Officer pertain to an amount of ₹26,75,000/- treated as unexplained investment and an amount of ₹17,46,250/- assessed as income from other sources under Section 56(2) of the Act.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the explanation furnished by the Assessee qua condonation of delay and non-compliance to the notices, we are inclined to restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh adjudication. Suffice to say, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issues afresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

Thus, the case is accordingly restored to the file of the JAO. It is clarified that the Assessee shall extend full cooperation during the reassessment proceedings and, in the event of any future default or non-compliance, would not be entitled for further leniency.

In the result, the appeal under consideration i.e. ITA No. 1719/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms.

In the result, all these appeals under consideration stands allowed for statistical purposes, in the aforesaid terms.