REVATI NARAYAN JANGAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO-42(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1228/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2026AY 2016-173 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, following a similar order in the assessee's own case. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) belatedly by 3 months. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was also delayed.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter restored for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSIAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1228/MUM/2026 (AY: 2016-17) Revati Narayan Jangam vs. ITO-42(1)(4) C/506 Shree Complex, Plot Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. No.106/112,Sector-14, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-410210. PAN/GIR No: APIPJ4676E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri (SR AR) Date of Hearing 05.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.07.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the National Faceless

Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 25.03.2025 for the assessment year

(AY) 2016-17.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. The CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal for the reason that appeal has been filed belatedly.

2.

The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of AO in passing an order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3.

The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of AO in levying penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act during the course of assessment proceeding. "

ITA No.1228/MUM/2026 Revati Narayan Jangam 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, after delay of 3 months from the statutory time limit. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal by holding that the appellant failed to prove that the reasons for the delay was beyond her control. Against the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal which is delayed by 248 days. The appellant has filed an affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the ITAT. It is stated that the appellant is a homemaker and is educated till 10th standard. It was also submitted that the mistake was inadvertent and due to improper handling of the matter by the erstwhile AR the assessee could not file appeal in time. It is submitted that the ITAT has set aside the order of CIT(A) for AYs 2016- 17 and 2019-20 and restored it to his file in the interest of justice to explain the cause of delay. The Ld. AR requested that the delay may therefore, be condoned and this penalty issue may also be set aside to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 4. The Ld. Sr. AR has supported the order of CIT(A). However, he has no objection if the delay is condoned and matter is restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the materials on record. We have also gone through the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AYs 2016- 17 and 2019-20 in ITA Nos. 8107 to 8109 & ITA Nos.8111 and 8112/Mum/2025 dated 25.02.2026. These appeals before the ITAT were against the quantum proceedings as well as imposition of penalties u/s 271F, 271(1)(c), 271AAC(1) and

ITA No.1228/MUM/2026 Revati Narayan Jangam 272A(1)(d) of the Act. In all these cases the appeals were dismissed in limine on

account of delay. After considering the submission of the assessee the Tribunal

observed that the delay is not inordinate. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and

granted an opportunity to explain the cause of delay in filing appeal. Since the

facts are similar, we also condoned the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.

For the reasons given in the order of ITAT cited supra, we are also of the

considered opinion that the assessee deserves an opportunity to explain the

cause of delay before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and

the matter is restored to his file for fresh adjudication in terms of the direction of

the Tribunal in the common order referred to above. Accordingly, the ground is

allowed for statistical purpose.

6.

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

Order is pronounced on 13.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 13.07.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →