USHADEVI KISHORE SHAW,KANDIVALI WEST MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, MUMBAI.

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1559/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 April 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay was caused by bona fide and unavoidable circumstances, specifically the illness and death of the assessee's Chartered Accountant. It was further held that a litigant should not suffer for the fault of their counsel, and the "sufficient cause" for delay should be interpreted liberally to advance justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 615 days. The delay was attributed to the illness and subsequent demise of the Chartered Accountant handling the assessee's tax matters. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, refusing to condone the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained due to the demise of the assessee's Chartered Accountant. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”(SMC

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi
For Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr.)
Hearing: 13/04/2026Pronounced: 20/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”(SMC) MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 1559/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Ushadevi Kishore Shaw Assessment Unit – ITO Ward- Room No. 705, Bldng No. 37, 42(1)(4), Mumbai, Sai Siddhi Chs, Shivaji Raje Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Complex, Ekta Nagar, Mumbai Mumbai 400051 400067. PAN NO. BJFPS5548J Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Ms. Ritu Punjabi Revenue by : Shri. Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr.)

Date of Hearing : 13/04/2026 Date of pronouncement : 20/04/2026

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 07.11.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short the “Ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18, raising following grounds:

“1. The Appellate order dated 07-01-2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, is

Ushadevi Kishore Shaw 2 ITA No. 1559/MUM/2026

illegal, bad in law and required to be quashed as unsustainable in law and facts. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) committed a gross error of law and fact in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant on the preliminary ground by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) committed a gross error of law and fact in not dealing with the grounds raised on merits of the matter but dismissing the appeal by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax grossly erred in not appreciating that the impugned delay is caused because of the failure of the Chartered Accountant who was handling the appellants Income tax matters. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) committed a gross error of law and fact in not appreciating that the said Chartered Accountant was ailing for some time and failed to attend to the notices sent by the department and ultimately expired due to his illness. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income declaring total income of ₹2,93,550/-. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In the absence of compliance by the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under Section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property at a consideration lower than the stamp duty value, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Further, an addition of ₹31,55,000/- was made under Section 69C of the Act towards unexplained investment, along with an addition of ₹78,400/- on account of variation in stamp duty value.

Ushadevi Kishore Shaw 3 ITA No. 1559/MUM/2026

2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the said appeal was filed with a delay of 615 days, for which an application seeking condonation of delay was filed explaining the circumstances leading to such delay. The assessee stated the reason for condonation of delay while filling form no. 35 as under:

“I. Mrs, Ushadevi Kishore Shaw, the appellant do hereby state that my Income Tax was handled by my brother Shailesh Kumar Suman, who has given the assignment to CA F. B. Patel having address at Office No. 241 Hubtown Solaris, N.8 Phadke Marg, Opp. Tellil Gall, Near Regency Hote. Next to Andheri Fly Over, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400069. My brother informs about the SMS and E-Mail received, which he is not seeing on a regular basis to CA FB. Patel. CA F. B. Patel was suffering with some ailment and he found it difficult to focus on office work hence failed to respond to the notices received from his clients. Sad to say that CA E. B Patel expired on 15/01/2025, after his expiry his staff started to return files to all clients and my brother collected the same in February 2025. After receiving the same we engaged now new practicing Chartered Accountants who logged in to the Income Tax Portal and verified pending actions and demand. At that time, I came to know that ex-parte Assessment Order u/s 147 for AY 2017-18 was passed and required to file an appeal for the same. The new Chartered Accountants instructed us to do the same. Hence, we are now fling the appeal. Based on the above facts and circumstances, I humbly pray to Your Honor to kindly Condon the delay in filing this appeal and decide this appeal on merits and oblige.” 3. The Ld. CIT(A), not being satisfied with the explanation furnished, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits, holding that ignorance of law and non-compliance within prescribed time cannot constitute sufficient cause. The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

Ushadevi Kishore Shaw 4 ITA No. 1559/MUM/2026

3.

Decision The appellant raised as many as nine grounds. The grounds were not taken into consideration while adjudicating this appeal. The reason(s) stated by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing of appeal was that her income tax details was handled by his brother, in- turn he had given the assignment to CA. His brother was not seeing the SM received in his mail, after seeing the SMS Informed to the appellant and hence the delay in filing the appeal. The reason(s) given by the appellant w.t.t. delay in filing of appeal, is not acceptable. ignorance of the provisions of law including with respect to compliance within the due date, is not an excuse for noncompliance of the provisions of the law. In the case under consideration, the appeal shall be filed on or before 22.06.2023, the appeal was filed on 25.02.2025 with a huge delay of 615 days without any valid reasons) for delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the contentions of the appellant, is hereby rejected. Therefore, after considering the facts of the case, I am of the Considered opinion "it is not a fit case for condonation of delay". In view of this, the appeal is hereby rejected without admitting for adjudication.” 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances, namely that the tax matters of the assessee were handled by a Chartered Accountant who was seriously ill and subsequently expired. It was contended that the assessee acted diligently upon gaining knowledge of the assessment order and promptly filed the appeal thereafter. It was thus prayed that the delay be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed position that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with a substantial delay. The

Ushadevi Kishore Shaw 5 ITA No. 1559/MUM/2026

assessee has, however, placed on record a duly sworn affidavit explaining that the delay occurred on account of the illness and subsequent demise of the Chartered Accountant sh F.B. Patel, who was handling her tax affairs, resulting in non-compliance with statutory notices . After his death, his staff started to return the files to all clients and thereafter the assessee engaged new CA, who advised to file an appeal before the ITAT, which caused delay in filing the appeal. It is a settled principle of law that a litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault or inadvertence of counsel, provided the explanation offered is bona fide and demonstrates reasonable diligence. The expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.

5.1 In the present case, the explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be plausible and supported by surrounding circumstances. The sequence of events, particularly the illness and demise of the professional handling the matter, constitutes a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay. In our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) adopted an unduly technical approach in declining to condone the delay and erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without examining the merits. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after affording

Ushadevi Kishore Shaw 6 ITA No. 1559/MUM/2026

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and furnish necessary evidences in support of her contentions.

6.

In the result the ground no 1 to 5 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. The ground on merit is accordingly apprehended.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 20/04/2026 Aditi Pandare, Private Secretary. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →