NILKANTH SURENDRA DHEBAR,THANE vs. CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

28.11.2025 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. The assessee has raised

following grounds of appeal:

Ground 1: Rejection of Appeal on Limitation

The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in rejecting the appeal filed by the Appellant on the ground that the same was filed with a delay of 690 days. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances explained by the Appellant which had prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed time.

Your Appellant submits that the delay occurred due to genuine and reasonable causes beyond the control of the Appellant, including the fact that the Appellant is a senior citizen and was not aware that the assessment order had been uploaded on the income tax portal. The action of the Hon'ble CIT(A) in rejecting the appeal

Nilkanth Surendra Dhebar (AY: 2012-13) ITA No. 3213/Mum/2026

without appreciating these circumstances is therefore unjustified and liable to be set aside.

Ground 2: Non-condonation of Delay

The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in not exercising the powers vested under section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had clearly explained the circumstances leading to the delay and had requested that the same be condoned in the interest of justice.

Your Appellant submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to reasonable and sufficient cause, including the Appellant's advanced age and lack of familiarity with the electronic mode of communication adopted by the department. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have taken a liberal view in the matter and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Ground 3: Appeal Dismissed Without Adjudication on Merits

The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds raised by the Appellant on merits. The Hon'ble CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the technical ground of delay without examining the substantive issues involved in the case.

Your Appellant submits that such dismissal without considering the merits of the case has resulted in grave injustice and amounts to denial of proper opportunity of hearing. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and adjudicated issues on merits in accordance with law.

Ground 4: Addition of Time Deposit

The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating that the Learned Assessing Officer had wrongly made an addition of Rs.13,00,000/- in the assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act by treating the same as unexplained investment in time deposits.

Your Appellant submits that the said addition has been made without properly appreciating the facts of the case and without considering the explanation regarding the source of the investments. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is therefore unjustified and liable to be deleted.

Nilkanth Surendra Dhebar (AY: 2012-13) ITA No. 3213/Mum/2026

Ground 5: Income Below Taxable Limit

The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating that the total income of the Appellant during the relevant financial year was below the basic exemption limit. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to consider that the Appellant was not liable to file the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act.

Your Appellant submits that since the income was below the minimum taxable limit, the Appellant was under no statutory obligation to file the return of income. The assessment made and the additions sustained are therefore unsustainable in law.

Ground 6: Source of Investment in Time Deposits

The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating that the Learned Assessing Officer had wrongly treated the investment of Rs.13,00,000/- in time deposits as unexplained without properly examining the bank records and the nature of the transactions.

Your Appellant submits that the said investments were made out of the proceeds received on maturity of earlier bonds and fixed deposits and the bank account reflects only such redemption proceeds and interest income. Accordingly, the said amount does not represent any new income and the addition made by the Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted.

Ground 7: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings

The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating that the Learned Assessing Officer had wrongly initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.

Your Appellant submits that there was neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the present case. Therefore, initiation of penalty proceedings is unwarranted and liable to be dropped.

Your Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any the above grounds of appeal.”

learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee fairly submits that

Nilkanth Surendra Dhebar (AY: 2012-13) ITA No. 3213/Mum/2026 there is delay of 51 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay in filing

appeal is not intentional or deliberate. The assessee is super senior citizen and is

not acquainted with the use of e-mail and could not realise dismissal of appeal.

The delay is not intentional or deliberate and may be condoned. The assessee

has good case on merit and is likely to succeeds if he is allowed to succeed on

merit. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that being super senior

citizen, the assessee shifted to the residence of his son. The assessee was not

available at the address given to Income Tax Department. The assessment as

well as ld. CIT(A) both are ex-parte. The assessing officer (AO) made addition of

Rs. 13.00 lacs on account of term deposit for the want of submission. The

deposit in the bank are from the known source and are not unexplained. As the

lower authorities passed ex-parte, therefore,matter may be restored back to the

file of assessing officer to pass the orders afresh. He undertakes on behalf of the

assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance.

the Revenue submits that he is seriously opposing delay however, it may be

noted that assessee has not made any compliance either before AO or before ld.

CIT(A). Thus, in case, the delay in filing appeal before Tribunal is condoned,

matter may be restored to assessing officer with the direction to assessee to

make compliance.

the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of

Nilkanth Surendra Dhebar (AY: 2012-13) ITA No. 3213/Mum/2026 condonation of delay of assessee. Considering the fact that delay is not

intentional. Thus, keeping in view, the principle of natural justice, delay in filing

appeal is condoned.

CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte. The assessing officer made addition on

account of time deposit of Rs. 13.00 lacs with HDFC Bank. The source of which

was not explained by assessee. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently

argued that assessee was not residing on the given address. Thus, no

compliance was made. Considering the fact that AO as well as, ld. CIT(A) has

passed the order ex-parte. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the

matter to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to pass the order

afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the AO shall allow fair

and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be

more vigilant in future in making timely compliance. In the result, the grounds of

appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order was pronounced in the open Court on19/05/2026 at the time of hearing.

/- S/- /- SSd/- Sd/- GIRISH AGRAWAL PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 19/05/2026 Biswajit

Nilkanth Surendra Dhebar (AY: 2012-13) ITA No. 3213/Mum/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file.

By Order

Assistant Registrar / DDO ITAT, Mumbai