What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds of appeal were not properly substantiated with necessary details and evidence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The assessee's appeal challenges an order from the NFAC, Delhi, for AY 2016-17. The grounds raised include the appellate order being illegal and without jurisdiction, passed in haste without proper opportunity, and granting only partial relief.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity and jurisdiction of the appellate order passed by the NFAC, and whether the assessee was granted adequate opportunity. The assessee also contested the partial relief granted and the basis of additions made by the AO.

Sangeeta Vipul Gangani vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Shri. Surendra Mohan, (SR. DR)

For Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan, (SR. DR)

Hearing: 22/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 304/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Sangeeta Vipul Gangani, Assessment Unit, Income Tax F1 304, Eff Jumbo Darshan, Department/ Income Tax Officer, Vs. Opp. Garware, Jiva Mahale Ward 31(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai Room No.321, Mumbai – 400020, – 400069, Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN NO. BACPG 6379 K Appellant Respondent

: Shri J. V Soni, Adv. Assessee by Revenue by : Shri. Surendra Mohan, (SR. DR)

Date of Hearing : 22/04/2026 : 05/05/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld.CIT(A)”] for the Assessment Year 2016–17, raising following grounds:

Sangeeta Vipul Gangani, 2 ITA No.304/MUM/2026

“1. THE ORDER IS BAD, ILLEGAL THE ORDER IS BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JUURISDICTION AND WITHOUT JUURISDICTION 1.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the appellate order In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the appellate order In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the appellate order framed by the Commissioner of Income framed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), (Ld. CIT (A), Delhi is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction as the Centre (NFAC), (Ld. CIT (A), Delhi is bad, illegal and without jurisdictio Centre (NFAC), (Ld. CIT (A), Delhi is bad, illegal and without jurisdictio same is framed in breach of statutory provisions and the scheme and as same is framed in breach of statutory provisions and the scheme and as same is framed in breach of statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also not in accordance with law Otherwise also, in the fact and otherwise also not in accordance with law Otherwise also, in the fact and otherwise also not in accordance with law Otherwise also, in the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the appellate order so framed by the Ld CIT circumstances of the case and in law the appellate order so framed by the Ld CIT circumstances of the case and in law the appellate order so framed by the Ld CIT (A) id bad and illegal void as the same is arbitrary and perverse. l void as the same is arbitrary and perverse. l void as the same is arbitrary and perverse. 1.2 The Order framed by the Ld. CIT(A) was passed in haste, without grant 1.2 The Order framed by the Ld. CIT(A) was passed in haste, without grant 1.2 The Order framed by the Ld. CIT(A) was passed in haste, without grant proper opportunity to your Appellant. proper opportunity to your Appellant. 2. LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN GRANTING PARTIAL RELIEF AND NOT 2. LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN GRANTING PARTIAL RELIEF AND NOT 2. LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN GRANTING PARTIAL RELIEF AND NOT CONSIDERING FULL CLAIM OF YOUR CONSIDERING FULL CLAIM OF YOUR APPELLANT 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that during the year under 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that during the year under 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that during the year under consideration only an amount of Rs 28,77,716/ consideration only an amount of Rs 28,77,716/-was paid and the balance was paid and the balance consideration of Rs 32.42,284/ consideration of Rs 32.42,284/- was paid in the subsequent year. Despite this, was paid in the subsequent year. Despite this, the Ld. CIT (A) pas the Ld. CIT (A) passed the said impugned Order for the entire amount of the sed the said impugned Order for the entire amount of the transaction, without having any jurisdiction therefor transaction, without having any jurisdiction therefor 2.2 The Ld CIT (A) also grossly erred in not considering the fact that there was no 2.2 The Ld CIT (A) also grossly erred in not considering the fact that there was no 2.2 The Ld CIT (A) also grossly erred in not considering the fact that there was no Cash Transaction involved in the entire transactions. The Source of Investment by Cash Transaction involved in the entire transactions. The Sou Cash Transaction involved in the entire transactions. The Sou your Appellant, in the said transaction was thoroughly explained to the Ld. CIT your Appellant, in the said transaction was thoroughly explained to the Ld. CIT your Appellant, in the said transaction was thoroughly explained to the Ld. CIT (A). It was also submitted by your Appellant before the Ld. CIT (A) that if any (A). It was also submitted by your Appellant before the Ld. CIT (A) that if any (A). It was also submitted by your Appellant before the Ld. CIT (A) that if any shortfall is found, the same may be treated as Gift by the husband of your shortfall is found, the same may be treated as Gift by the husband of your shortfall is found, the same may be treated as Gift by the husband of your Appellant for investment in purchase of the said Property. The husband of the Appellant for investment in purchase of the said Property. The husband of the Appellant for investment in purchase of the said Property. The husband of the Assessee had taxable Assessee had taxable income of more than Rs.20 Lakh, every year & therefore he income of more than Rs.20 Lakh, every year & therefore he can afford gift some part to his wife can afford gift some part to his wife 3. ASSESSMENT FRAMED SUBJECT TO REVISION IS BAD IN LAW 3. ASSESSMENT FRAMED SUBJECT TO REVISION IS BAD IN LAW 3. ASSESSMENT FRAMED SUBJECT TO REVISION IS BAD IN LAW 3.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer framed the the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer framed the the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer framed the Order by making additions of Rs.26.77.716 Order by making additions of Rs.26.77.716-calculated on the basis of TDS calculated on the basis of TDS Returns paid during the year under part payment consideration as well Rs Returns paid during the year under part payment consideration as well Rs Returns paid during the year under part payment consideration as well Rs 61,20,000/- being the total conside being the total consideration, based on the information from the Sub ration, based on the information from the Sub- Registrar. in respect of the said transaction, totaling both the amount and treating Registrar. in respect of the said transaction, totaling both the amount and treating Registrar. in respect of the said transaction, totaling both the amount and treating the Total as undisclosed income of your appellant, without application of mind, the Total as undisclosed income of your appellant, without application of mind, the Total as undisclosed income of your appellant, without application of mind, which is bad in law and the same was passed w which is bad in law and the same was passed without any jurisdiction therefor ithout any jurisdiction therefor 4. ARBITRARY ADDITION MADE BY THE LD, CIT (A) AS WELL AS THE ARBITRARY ADDITION MADE BY THE LD, CIT (A) AS WELL AS THE ARBITRARY ADDITION MADE BY THE LD, CIT (A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ALSO ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ALSO ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ALSO WITHOUT JURISDICTION WITHOUT JURISDICTION 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) as well as the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact 1 The Ld. CIT (A) as well as the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact 1 The Ld. CIT (A) as well as the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the entire transaction was spread over in more than 1 year and therefore at the entire transaction was spread over in more than 1 year and therefore at the entire transaction was spread over in more than 1 year and therefore neither the Ld. CIT (A) and nor the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction in neither the Ld. CIT (A) and nor the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction in neither the Ld. CIT (A) and nor the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction in

Sangeeta Vipul Gangani, 3 ITA No.304/MUM/2026

passing the impugned order and considering the amounts paid by the Assessee passing the impugned order and considering the amounts paid by the Assessee passing the impugned order and considering the amounts paid by the Assessee and her husband (Co and her husband (Co-purchaser) of the said Property as the entire Income of your er) of the said Property as the entire Income of your Appellant 4.2 The Ld CIT (A) granted partial relief to your Appellant, however failed to 4.2 The Ld CIT (A) granted partial relief to your Appellant, however failed to 4.2 The Ld CIT (A) granted partial relief to your Appellant, however failed to appreciate the fact that the entire transaction was spread over in more than 1 appreciate the fact that the entire transaction was spread over in more than 1 appreciate the fact that the entire transaction was spread over in more than 1 year and therefore had no jurisdic year and therefore had no jurisdiction in treating the entire investment fully tion in treating the entire investment fully during the year under consideration. during the year under consideration. 5. 5. 5. LD. LD. LD. CIT(A) CIT(A) CIT(A) GROSSLY GROSSLY GROSSLY ERRED ERRED ERRED IN IN IN TREATING TREATING TREATING RS.5,81,400/- RS.5,81,400/ RS.5,81,400/ AS UNEXPLAINED BALANCE AND SUSTAINED IT AS ADDITION U/S. 69. UNEXPLAINED BALANCE AND SUSTAINED IT AS ADDITION U/S. 69. UNEXPLAINED BALANCE AND SUSTAINED IT AS ADDITION U/S. 69. 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Loan was by your 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant for making investment in purchase of the said property. Her co- Appellant for making investment in purchase of the said property. Her co Appellant for making investment in purchase of the said property. Her co purchaser husband had substantial source of income & therefore his name was purchaser husband had substantial source of income & therefore his name was purchaser husband had substantial source of income & therefore his name was joined as a co-borrower merely for name sake & the entire investment made by borrower merely for name sake & the entire investment made by borrower merely for name sake & the entire investment made by your Appellant was from this borrowed funds. It was t was from this borrowed funds. It was also explained that in the also explained that in the event if there is any shortfall, the same may be treated as Gift from husband event if there is any shortfall, the same may be treated as Gift from husband event if there is any shortfall, the same may be treated as Gift from husband view of the fact that there is no Casn element involved in the entire transaction, view of the fact that there is no Casn element involved in the entire transaction, view of the fact that there is no Casn element involved in the entire transaction, the Lo. CIT(A) as well as the the Lo. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer grossly erred in treating the Assessing Officer grossly erred in treating the alleged shortfall as addition u/s. 69 of the IT Act alleged shortfall as addition u/s. 69 of the IT Act 5.2 It is therefore submitted that there is neither any shortfall and nor any 5.2 It is therefore submitted that there is neither any shortfall and nor any 5.2 It is therefore submitted that there is neither any shortfall and nor any amount liable for addition u/s 69 of the IT Act. amount liable for addition u/s 69 of the IT Act.” 2. Briefly stated, the fac Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are ts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee did not file her return of income under Section that the assessee did not file her return of income under Section that the assessee did not file her return of income under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Based on information available on record, the Assessing Act”). Based on information available on record, the Assessing Act”). Based on information available on record, the Assessing Officer observed that Officer observed that the assessee had purchased an immovable the assessee had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of ₹61,20,000/-, out of which a sum of property for a consideration of , out of which a sum of ₹28,77,716/- was reflected as part payment in the TDS returns. was reflected as part payment in the TDS returns. was reflected as part payment in the TDS returns. Despite issuance of multiple statutory notices, the assessee failed to Despite issuance of multiple statutory notices, the assessee failed to Despite issuance of multiple statutory notices, the assessee failed to comply. Even after granting an adjournment up to 28.02.2024 in comply. Even after granting an adjournment up to 28.02.2024 in comply. Even after granting an adjournment up to 28.02.2024 in response to a show cause notice, no compliance was forthcoming. response to a show cause notice, no compliance was forthcomi response to a show cause notice, no compliance was forthcomi In the absence of any explanation, the Assessing Officer proceeded In the absence of any explanation, the Assessing Officer proceeded In the absence of any explanation, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition by considering both the part payment of Rs. to make addition by considering both the part payment to make addition by considering both the part payment

Sangeeta Vipul Gangani, 4 ITA No.304/MUM/2026

28,77,716/- as well as the stamp duty value of the property as well as the stamp duty value of the property at Rs. as well as the stamp duty value of the property 61,20,000/-..

In appeal, the assessee contended befor In appeal, the assessee contended before the learned CIT(A) that e the learned CIT(A) that the amount of ₹28,77,716/ 28,77,716/- constituted part of the total constituted part of the total consideration and not an independent investment. It was further consideration and not an independent investment. It was further consideration and not an independent investment. It was further submitted that the property was jointly acquired by the assessee submitted that the property was jointly acquired by the assessee submitted that the property was jointly acquired by the assessee and her husband and, therefore, only 50% of and her husband and, therefore, only 50% of the investment could the investment could be attributed to the assessee. be attributed to the assessee. The learned CIT(A), upon appreciation The learned CIT(A), upon appreciation of the material on record, partly accepted the contention of the of the material on record, partly accepted the contention of the of the material on record, partly accepted the contention of the assessee and held that the approach of the Assessing Officer in assessee and held that the approach of the Assessing Officer in assessee and held that the approach of the Assessing Officer in treating both the part payment and th treating both the part payment and the total consideration as e total consideration as separate investments was factually unsustainable. The CIT(A) separate investments was factually unsustainable. The CIT(A) separate investments was factually unsustainable. The CIT(A) further held that, in the absence of any contrary evidence, equal further held that, in the absence of any contrary evidence, equal further held that, in the absence of any contrary evidence, equal ownership between the co ownership between the co-purchasers ought to be presumed. purchasers ought to be presumed. Accordingly, only 50% of the total considerati Accordingly, only 50% of the total consideration, i.e., on, i.e., ₹30,60,000/-, was liable to be examined in the hands of the assessee. After was liable to be examined in the hands of the assessee. After was liable to be examined in the hands of the assessee. After considering the proportionate loan component of considering the proportionate loan component of ₹ ₹24,78,600/- as explained, the CIT(A) sustained an addition of explained, the CIT(A) sustained an addition of ₹5,81,400/ 5,81,400/- under Section 69 of the Act. Section 69 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) also observed that the loan observed that the loan obtained for acquisition of the property was subsequently foreclosed obtained for acquisition of the property was subsequently foreclosed obtained for acquisition of the property was subsequently foreclosed by a substantial repayment in Assessment Year 2022–23, raising a by a substantial repayment in Assessment Year 2022 by a substantial repayment in Assessment Year 2022 prima facie issue regarding the source of such repayment, and prima facie issue regarding the source of such repayment, and prima facie issue regarding the source of such repayment, and accordingly directed the Assessing O accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to examine the same in fficer to examine the same in

Sangeeta Vipul Gangani, 5 ITA No.304/MUM/2026

the appropriate assessment year. the appropriate assessment year. The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under: reproduced as under:

“4.3. Hence based on the material available on record, I am of the considered Hence based on the material available on record, I am of the considered Hence based on the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion, that the AO's approach of adding both part payment (Rs.28.77,716) and that the AO's approach of adding both part payment (Rs.28.77,716) and that the AO's approach of adding both part payment (Rs.28.77,716) and total consideration (Rs.61,20,000) is factually incorrect. The correct investment is total consideration (Rs.61,20,000) is factually incorrect. The correct investment is total consideration (Rs.61,20,000) is factually incorrect. The correct investment is only Rs.61.20,000/ - as per the registered agreement. Further the sale deed as per the registered agreement. Further the sale deed records the appellant and records the appellant and her husband as co-purchasers. In the absence of purchasers. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, equal ownership is presumed, Accordingly, only 50% of evidence to the contrary, equal ownership is presumed, Accordingly, on evidence to the contrary, equal ownership is presumed, Accordingly, on the investment, i.e. Rs. 30,60,000/ Rs. 30,60,000/-, falls to be examined in assessee's hands , falls to be examined in assessee's hands Further, as observed the ICICI Bank loan was Further, as observed the ICICI Bank loan was jointly sanctioned ntly sanctioned to the appellant and her husband. Therefore, only 50% of the loan, i.e., and her husband. Therefore, only 50% of the loan, i.e., Rs. 24,78,600/ Rs. 24,78,600/-, can be considered as explained in the assessee's hands. Reliance is placed on the case considered as explained in the assessee's hands. Reliance is placed on the case considered as explained in the assessee's hands. Reliance is placed on the case of CIT v. Kulwant Rai [291 ITR 36 (Del)) where it was held that loan transactions. of CIT v. Kulwant Rai [291 ITR 36 (Del)) where it was held that of CIT v. Kulwant Rai [291 ITR 36 (Del)) where it was held that through banks cannot be ignored when duly supported. Thus, out of the through banks cannot be ignored when duly supported. Thus, out of the through banks cannot be ignored when duly supported. Thus, out of the appellant's 50% share of Rs. 30,60,000/ appellant's 50% share of Rs. 30,60,000/-, the portion of Rs. 24,78,600 stands , the portion of Rs. 24,78,600 stands explained. Now, in her 50% share of Rs. 30,60,000/ explained. Now, in her 50% share of Rs. 30,60,000/-, the unexplained balance is , the unexplained balance is Rs. 5,81,400/- (30,60,000 24,78,600), which remains unsubstantiated. To this (30,60,000 24,78,600), which remains unsubstantiated. To this (30,60,000 24,78,600), which remains unsubstantiated. To this extent, the addition u/s 69 is sustained extent, the addition u/s 69 is sustained. Further it is also observed from the ICICI loan account that although the property Further it is also observed from the ICICI loan account that although the property Further it is also observed from the ICICI loan account that although the property was purchased with borrowed funds during AY 2016 was purchased with borrowed funds during AY 2016-17, the entir 17, the entire outstanding was foreclosed on 03.01.2022 03.01.2022 by a single repayment of Rs. 41,60,000/ 41,60,000/-. This aspect prima facie raises doubt regarding the source of repayment. However, This aspect prima facie raises doubt regarding the source of repayment. However, This aspect prima facie raises doubt regarding the source of repayment. However, since repayment occurred in AY 2022 since repayment occurred in AY 2022-23, the matter falls outside the scope of the 23, the matter falls outside the scope of the present appeal. Thus, the AO is directed to examine the source of repayment of appeal. Thus, the AO is directed to examine the source of repayment of appeal. Thus, the AO is directed to examine the source of repayment of loan in AY 2022-23 in accordance with law. Further AO is also directed to take 23 in accordance with law. Further AO is also directed to take 23 in accordance with law. Further AO is also directed to take remedial action, if require remedial action, if required, in the hands of the co-owner, Shri Vipul Amrutlal Gangani, for his share. Ac Gangani, for his share. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.” partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the partial sustenance of addition, the assessee Aggrieved by the partial sustenance of addition, the assessee Aggrieved by the partial sustenance of addition, the assessee has preferred the present appeal has preferred the present appeal before us by way of the grounds before us by way of the grounds reproduced above.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 45 days in At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 45 days in At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit explaining filing the appeal. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit explaining filing the appeal. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit explaining the delay, inter alia , inter alia, on the ground that the notice of demand , on the ground that the notice of demand indicated a limitation period of 120 days for filing the appeal, indicated a limitation period of 120 days for filing the appeal, indicated a limitation period of 120 days for filing the appeal,

Sangeeta Vipul Gangani, 6 ITA No.304/MUM/2026

leading to a bona fide belief regarding the permissible time limit. It leading to a bona fide belief regarding the permissible leading to a bona fide belief regarding the permissible has further been stated that the delay was occasioned due to has further been stated that the delay was occasioned due to has further been stated that the delay was occasioned due to intervening festival periods, personal circumstances including intervening festival periods, personal circumstances including intervening festival periods, personal circumstances including illness, and the ill-health of the authorised representative. health of the authorised representative. health of the authorised representative. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced as und of the affidavit is reproduced as under:

“1. I have preferred to file an appeal against the Order of the 1. I have preferred to file an appeal against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of 1. I have preferred to file an appeal against the Order of the Income (Appeals) (CIT (A)) NFAC, dated 11.09.2025, received by me on Income (Appeals) (CIT (A)) NFAC, dated 11.09.2025, received by me on Income (Appeals) (CIT (A)) NFAC, dated 11.09.2025, received by me on 17.09.2025. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer served upon me an Order u/s. 154, giving effect to 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer served upon me an Order u/s. 154, giving effect to 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer served upon me an Order u/s. 154, giving effect to the Ld. CIT (A)'s along with Notice of Demand u/s. 156 of the Income Tax Act, CIT (A)'s along with Notice of Demand u/s. 156 of the Income Tax Act, CIT (A)'s along with Notice of Demand u/s. 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 17.09.2025. 1961, dated 17.09.2025. 3. The said Notice of Demand, at para 5 states "that an Appeal under part A of 3. The said Notice of Demand, at para 5 states "that an Appeal under part A of 3. The said Notice of Demand, at para 5 states "that an Appeal under part A of Chapter XX of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Hon'ble ITAT may be presented Chapter XX of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Hon'ble ITAT may be presented Chapter XX of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Hon'ble ITAT may be presented within 120 days of the receipt of the notice. Thus the Appellant genuinely 120 days of the receipt of the notice. Thus the Appellant genuinely 120 days of the receipt of the notice. Thus the Appellant genuinely believed that she had 120 days to present the Appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT". The believed that she had 120 days to present the Appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT". The believed that she had 120 days to present the Appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT". The copy of the said Notice of Demand is enclosed herewith. copy of the said Notice of Demand is enclosed herewith. 4. In the meantime there were Navratri & Diwali fest In the meantime there were Navratri & Diwali festivals when I was busy ivals when I was busy fasting & thereafter I was busy caring for my ailing old mother. I was also fasting & thereafter I was busy caring for my ailing old mother. I was also fasting & thereafter I was busy caring for my ailing old mother. I was also suffering from viral fever during the end of November, 2025. suffering from viral fever during the end of November, 2025. 5. Thereafter my Advocate was also suffering from Acute Bronchitis and therefore Thereafter my Advocate was also suffering from Acute Bronchitis and therefore Thereafter my Advocate was also suffering from Acute Bronchitis and therefore I contacted my advocate on or about 8th of January, 2026, considering the fact dvocate on or about 8th of January, 2026, considering the fact dvocate on or about 8th of January, 2026, considering the fact that my 120 days for filing the Appeal, would be getting over. that my 120 days for filing the Appeal, would be getting over. that my 120 days for filing the Appeal, would be getting over. 6. Thus when I informed my Advocate on or about 8th of January, 2026, about 6. Thus when I informed my Advocate on or about 8th of January, 2026, about 6. Thus when I informed my Advocate on or about 8th of January, 2026, about the said Order of the CIT (A) and for filing of the the said Order of the CIT (A) and for filing of the Appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. Appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. My Advocate immediately prepared the documents, urgently and presented the My Advocate immediately prepared the documents, urgently and presented the My Advocate immediately prepared the documents, urgently and presented the Appeal. 7. I therefore declare on oath that I was primarily under genuine belief that the 7. I therefore declare on oath that I was primarily under genuine belief that the 7. I therefore declare on oath that I was primarily under genuine belief that the period for filing of the Appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, wa period for filing of the Appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, was within 120 days, from s within 120 days, from the date of receipt of the said Order, as mentioned in the Notice of Demand u/s. the date of receipt of the said Order, as mentioned in the Notice of Demand u/s. 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further thereafter fasting during Navratri and 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further thereafter fasting during Navratri and 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further thereafter fasting during Navratri and Diwali and caring for my ailing old mother and my own ill-health and also ill- Diwali and caring for my ailing old mother and my own ill Diwali and caring for my ailing old mother and my own ill health of my Advocate, I had sufficient cause for delay of around 45 days for health of my Advocate, I had sufficient cause for delay of around 45 days for health of my Advocate, I had sufficient cause for delay of around 45 days for filing of the said Appeal, before the Hon'ble ITAT, which may be condoned. filing of the said Appeal, before the Hon'ble ITAT, which may be condoned. filing of the said Appeal, before the Hon'ble ITAT, which may be condoned.

Sangeeta Vipul Gangani, 7 ITA No.304/MUM/2026

I am filing this Affidavit to record the reasons for my delay of 45 days in filing 8. I am filing this Affidavit to record the reasons for my delay of 45 days in filing 8. I am filing this Affidavit to record the reasons for my delay of 45 days in filing the said Appeal, before the Hon'ble ITAT and for seeking that the said delay may ppeal, before the Hon'ble ITAT and for seeking that the said delay may ppeal, before the Hon'ble ITAT and for seeking that the said delay may be condoned.” 6. We have carefully considered the explanation furnished. It is a We have carefully considered the explanation furnished. It is a We have carefully considered the explanation furnished. It is a settled principle that the expression “sufficient cause” should settled principle that the expression “sufficient cause” should settled principle that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, advance substantial justice, particularly where the delay is neither deliberate nor attributable to particularly where the delay is neither deliberate nor attributable to particularly where the delay is neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide conduct. In the present case, the explanation offered any mala fide conduct. In the present case, the explanation offered any mala fide conduct. In the present case, the explanation offered by the assessee appears to be plausible and supported by a sworn by the assessee appears to be plausible and supported by a sworn by the assessee appears to be plausible and supported by a sworn affidavit. The delay is affidavit. The delay is also not inordinate. In these circumstances, also not inordinate. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. mitted for adjudication on merits.

On merits, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that On merits, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that On merits, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that detailed bank statements and supporting documents evidencing the detailed bank statements and supporting documents evidencing the detailed bank statements and supporting documents evidencing the source of investment in the property have now been compiled and source of investment in the property have now been compiled and source of investment in the property have now been compiled and are available for verifica are available for verification. It was contended that these materials, tion. It was contended that these materials, which go to the root of the matter, were not adequately examined by which go to the root of the matter, were not adequately examined by which go to the root of the matter, were not adequately examined by the lower authorities, and therefore, the matter deserves to be the lower authorities, and therefore, the matter deserves to be the lower authorities, and therefore, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification. restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification. restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification.

We have considered the submissions and perused the material have considered the submissions and perused the material have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the determination of the issue available on record. It is evident that the determination of the issue available on record. It is evident that the determination of the issue relating to unexplained investment hinges upon verification of relating to unexplained investment hinges upon verification of relating to unexplained investment hinges upon verification of primary facts, including the source of funds, banking transactions, primary facts, including the source of funds, banking transactio primary facts, including the source of funds, banking transactio

Sangeeta Vipul Gangani, 8 ITA No.304/MUM/2026

and the extent of contribution by the co and the extent of contribution by the co-owner. Such an exercise owner. Such an exercise necessarily requires examination of documentary evidence, which, necessarily requires examination of documentary evidence, which, necessarily requires examination of documentary evidence, which, in the present case, has not been comprehensively undertaken at in the present case, has not been comprehensively undertaken at in the present case, has not been comprehensively undertaken at the stage of assessment or appellate proceedings. the stage of assessment or appellate proceedings.

In our considered view, where the adjudication of a dispute ur considered view, where the adjudication of a dispute ur considered view, where the adjudication of a dispute depends upon appreciation of factual material and verification of depends upon appreciation of factual material and verification of depends upon appreciation of factual material and verification of evidences, the ends of justice would be best served by affording the evidences, the ends of justice would be best served by affording the evidences, the ends of justice would be best served by affording the assessee an opportunity to place such material before the Assessing assessee an opportunity to place such material before the Assessi assessee an opportunity to place such material before the Assessi Officer for proper examination. This approach is consistent with the Officer for proper examination. This approach is consistent with the Officer for proper examination. This approach is consistent with the principles of natural justice and ensures that no party is prejudiced principles of natural justice and ensures that no party is prejudiced principles of natural justice and ensures that no party is prejudiced on account of inadequate consideration of relevant evidence. on account of inadequate consideration of relevant evidence. on account of inadequate consideration of relevant evidence. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine afresh the source of investment in the property in light to examine afresh the source of investment in the property in light to examine afresh the source of investment in the property in light of the evidences to be furnished of the evidences to be furnished by the assessee. The Assessing by the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the Officer shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the Officer shall afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in assessee and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in assessee and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. accordance with law.

10.

In view of the aforesaid directions, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the In view of the aforesaid directions, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the In view of the aforesaid directions, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. The remaining grounds, owed for statistical purposes. The remaining grounds, owed for statistical purposes. The remaining grounds, being consequential or academic in nature, do not call for being consequential or academic in nature, do not call for being consequential or academic in nature, do not call for adjudication at this stage. adjudication at this stage.

Sangeeta Vipul Gangani, 9 ITA No.304/MUM/2026

11.

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

Order pronounced in the open Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/05 05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai; Dated: 05/05/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai

SANGEETA VIPUL GANGANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments