ANURADHA SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), THANE

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. 927/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Anuradha Sharma, ITO Ward 1(1), 27, Vishal Tower, Kolbad Quereshi Mansion, Gokhale Vs. Road, Thane West, Road, Thane-400601. Thane-400601. PAN NO. DSSPS 1475 L Appellant Respondent

: Mr. S.P. Mithani Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. 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 30.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), Varanasi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, refusing to condone a delay of 2165 days in filing the first appeal.

Anuradha Sharma 2 ITA No. 927/MUM/2026

declaring a total income of ₹8,14,121/-, return on 30.08.2018 on 30.08.2018 declaring a total income of which included a salary component of ₹7,90,000/ which included a salary component of 7,90,000/- mistakenly disclosed under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. disclosed under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. disclosed under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’.

2.1 While processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Income While processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Income While processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, 1961 (‘the Act’), the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, 1961 (‘the Act’), the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, assessed the same amount of ₹7,90,000/- under the head ‘Income assessed the same amount of under the head ‘Income from Salary’ without excluding it from the other head. This resulted from Salary’ without excluding it from the other head. This resul from Salary’ without excluding it from the other head. This resul in a double taxation double taxation of the same receipt—a patent error on the face a patent error on the face of the record.

2.2 The Ld. Counsel Counsel for the assessee submitted that for the assessee submitted that this discrepancy in the order u/s 143(1) in the order u/s 143(1) was overlooked by her then was overlooked by her then- Authorized Representative. The error came to light only when Authorized Representative. The error came to ligh Authorized Representative. The error came to ligh recovery proceedings were initiated, prompting the immediate filing recovery proceedings were initiated, prompting the immediate filing recovery proceedings were initiated, prompting the immediate filing of an appeal through a new consultant. of an appeal through a new consultant. Thus the issue in dispute is Thus the issue in dispute is whether the explanation submitted by the assessee constitutes a whether the explanation submitted by the assessee whether the explanation submitted by the assessee sufficient cause for condoning the delay. sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

Anuradha Sharma 3 ITA No. 927/MUM/2026

“3.1. Decision on condonation of delay: Decision on condonation of delay: - The appellant has sought The appellant has sought condonation of an inordinate delay of 2165 days in filing the instant condonation of an inordinate delay of 2165 days in filing the instant condonation of an inordinate delay of 2165 days in filing the instant appeal, which was due against the intimation order dated appeal, which was due against the intimation order dated appeal, which was due against the intimation order dated 30/08/2018. The reason advanced for this significant delay is 30/08/2018. The reason advanced for this significant delay is 30/08/2018. The reason advanced for this significant delay is attributed to an "inadvertent mistake on the part of the tax uted to an "inadvertent mistake on the part of the tax uted to an "inadvertent mistake on the part of the tax consultant who did not notice order passed by CPC." consultant who did not notice order passed by CPC."  I have carefully considered the appellant's request for I have carefully considered the appellant's request for I have carefully considered the appellant's request for condonation and the reasons cited for the delay. The power condonation and the reasons cited for the delay. The power condonation and the reasons cited for the delay. The power to condone delay under Section 249 to condone delay under Section 249(3) of the Act is (3) of the Act is discretionary and requires the appellant to demonstrate discretionary and requires the appellant to demonstrate discretionary and requires the appellant to demonstrate "sufficient cause" that prevented them from filing the appeal "sufficient cause" that prevented them from filing the appeal "sufficient cause" that prevented them from filing the appeal on time. on time.  Absence of "Sufficient Cause": The sole reason provided that Absence of "Sufficient Cause": The sole reason provided that Absence of "Sufficient Cause": The sole reason provided that the order "skipped the attention" of the tax consultant is a the order "skipped the attention" of the tax consu the order "skipped the attention" of the tax consu vague and routine explanation. In the eyes of the law, the vague and routine explanation. In the eyes of the law, the vague and routine explanation. In the eyes of the law, the negligence of an agent/consultant does not automatically negligence of an agent/consultant does not automatically negligence of an agent/consultant does not automatically constitute a "sufficient cause," especially when the delay constitute a "sufficient cause," especially when the delay constitute a "sufficient cause," especially when the delay spans over half a decade. spans over half a decade.  Lack of Vigilance: The appellant, being an assessee, is Lack of Vigilance: The appellant, being an a Lack of Vigilance: The appellant, being an a expected to be vigilant about their tax affairs. A delay of expected to be vigilant about their tax affairs. A delay of expected to be vigilant about their tax affairs. A delay of 2165 days indicates gross negligence and a lack of bona fide 2165 days indicates gross negligence and a lack of bona fide 2165 days indicates gross negligence and a lack of bona fide intent. intent. intent. There There There is is is no no no evidence evidence evidence of of of any any any extraordinary extraordinary extraordinary circumstances that prevented the appellant from filing the circumstances that prevented the appellant from filing the circumstances that prevented the appellant from filing the appeal for six appeal for six years.  Legal Precedents: It is a settled principle of law that "Equity Legal Precedents: It is a settled principle of law that "Equity Legal Precedents: It is a settled principle of law that "Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber over their rights." aids the vigilant, not those who slumber over their rights." aids the vigilant, not those who slumber over their rights." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) held that while a liberal Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) held that while a liberal Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) held that while a liberal approach may be taken, it cannot be used to override the law ach may be taken, it cannot be used to override the law ach may be taken, it cannot be used to override the law of limitation where there is evidence of total inaction or of limitation where there is evidence of total inaction or of limitation where there is evidence of total inaction or negligence. negligence.  The reasons provided by the appellant are generic, lack The reasons provided by the appellant are generic, lack The reasons provided by the appellant are generic, lack corroborative evidence, and do not explain the "day-to-day" corroborative evidence, and do not explain the "day corroborative evidence, and do not explain the "day delay or even delay or even the "year-to-year" delay. Acceptance of such a year" delay. Acceptance of such a plea would render the statutory timelines provided in the Act plea would render the statutory timelines provided in the Act plea would render the statutory timelines provided in the Act redundant. redundant. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to establish a "sufficient cause" for the appellant has failed to establish a "sufficient cause" for the appellant has failed to establish a "sufficient cause" for the inordinate delay of 2165 days, therefore, the application for delay of 2165 days, therefore, the application for delay of 2165 days, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal is condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal is condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in limine as being barred by limitation.” dismissed in limine as being barred by limitation.” 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the We have considered the rival submissions and perused the We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The material on record. The solitary issue for our adjudication is solitary issue for our adjudication is

Anuradha Sharma 4 ITA No. 927/MUM/2026

whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay in a case involving a delay in a case involving a probable manifest clerical error leading manifest clerical error leading to double taxation. The expression "sufficient cause" as employed The expression "sufficient cause" as employed in Section 249(3) of the Act must receive a liberal construction to ) of the Act must receive a liberal construction to ) of the Act must receive a liberal construction to advance the cause of justice. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme advance the cause of justice. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme advance the cause of justice. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Court in the landmark case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) that when substantial justice hen substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred, for the other side cannot of substantial justice must be preferred, for the other side cannot of substantial justice must be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non- claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay.

4.1 It is a settled legal position It is a settled legal position that an assessee should not suffer that an assessee should not suffer for the ‘laches’ or inaction of their counsel. In the present case, the or inaction of their counsel. In the present case, the or inaction of their counsel. In the present case, the assessee is a salaried individual who reasonably relied upon is a salaried individual who reasonably relied upon is a salaried individual who reasonably relied upon professional advice. The failure of the previous consultant to notice professional advice. The failure of the previous consultant to notice professional advice. The failure of the previous consultant to notice a double addition if any, in a summary intimation cannot be if any, in a summary intimation cannot be if any, in a summary intimation cannot be attributed to a lack of attributed to a lack of bona fides on the part of the assessee assessee.

4.2 As per the submission of the assessee the same income of As per the submission of the assessee the same income of As per the submission of the assessee the same income of ₹7,90,000/- has been taxed twice but to deny an assessee the has been taxed twice but to deny an assessee the has been taxed twice but to deny an assessee the opportunity to correct a opportunity to correct a glaring mathematical error merely on the glaring mathematical error merely on the grounds of limitation would result in the State unjustly enriching grounds of limitation would result in the State unjustly enriching grounds of limitation would result in the State unjustly enriching itself through a technicality. itself through a technicality.

Anuradha Sharma 5 ITA No. 927/MUM/2026

4.3 We find that the delay, though inordinate, was not intentional We find that the delay, though inordinate, was not intentional We find that the delay, though inordinate, was not intentional or motivated by any ulterior gain. On the contrary, the Appellant or motivated by any ulterior gain. On the contrary or motivated by any ulterior gain. On the contrary stood to lose significantly by not filing the appeal. Given the stood to lose significantly by not filing the appeal. Given the stood to lose significantly by not filing the appeal. Given the strength of the case on merits, we are of the considered view that strength of the case on merits, we are of the considered view that strength of the case on merits, we are of the considered view that the delay ought to be condoned to prevent a miscarriage of justice. the delay ought to be condoned to prevent a miscarriage of justice. the delay ought to be condoned to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

4.4 Accordingly, we Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. Since admit the appeal. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has not examined the merits of the case, we set aside the Ld. CIT(A) has not examined the merits of the case, we the Ld. CIT(A) has not examined the merits of the case, we the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the Appellant a for a fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the Appellant a for a fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the Appellant a fair opportunity of bein fair opportunity of being heard. We have not expressed any finding g heard. We have not expressed any finding on the merit of issue and ld CIT(A) shall decide the issue in on the merit of issue and ld CIT(A) shall decide the issue in on the merit of issue and ld CIT(A) shall decide the issue in accordance with law. accordance with law.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 20/04/ /04/2026. Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (ANIKESH BANERJEE (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 20/04/2026 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Anuradha Sharma 6 ITA No. 927/MUM/2026

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