GEETINDER SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI STATION COMPLEX

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8853/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2022-23)

Geetinder Singh vs ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai Flat No.901, Blue Kites, Sector Room No.329, 3rd Floor, tower 21, Plot No.5, Koperkhirane, No.6, Vashi Station Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709 Vashi-400703 PAN:BBLPS0910C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya- Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Priyanka Mashilkar (Sr.AR) Date of hearing : 26/03/2026 Date of pronouncement : 02/04/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2022-23, date of order 29.10.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’), order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, date of order 29.03.2025.

2 ITA No.8853/Mum/2025 Geetinder Singh 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a NRI and during the impugned assessment year the assessment was completed u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act with an addition related to the on money payment for purchase of property amount to Rs.50,00,000/- which was added back u/sec. 68 of the Act. Further the additions were made related to unexplained expenses Rs.29,000/- and violation of provision 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.62,85,756/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). With a delay of 102 days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 80 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee was suffering the T.B. disease. Hence assessee was travelling to Australia for repetitive health check up. The assessee filed a notarized affidavit executed on 18.03.2026 at the Court House, Queanbeyan New South Wales. The assessee categorically explained the reason for delay in filing appeal. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced as below: “I. Geetinder Singh, aged about 47 years, son of Sh Armohan Singh, presently residing at 6 Palm Court, Jerrabomberra, NSW, 2619 Australia, do hereby state on solemn affirmation as follows 1. I say that I am a Non-Resident Indian and presently residing in Australia. Before relocating abroad, I was residing in India at 901 Blue Kites, Plot no. 5, Sector 2A, Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400709, Maharashtra, India 2. I say that, while in India or otherwise, I am engaged in the business of real estate brokerage under my proprietorship concern, M/s. Click Ghar. 3. I say that I have been regularly assessed to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] in India for more than 19 years.

3 ITA No.8853/Mum/2025 Geetinder Singh 4. I say that on 13.09.2024, I was granted a Skilled Regional 491 Visa for Australia, which is a point-based skilled migration visa requiring verified professional experience and English language proficiency 5. I say that I first travelled to Australia on that visa on 27.10.2024 and secured employment within approximately 10 days. 6. I say that I returned to India on 19.12.2024 for Christmas Holidays and to complete final arrangements for permanent relocation. 7. I say that I thereafter returned to Australia on 13.01.2025, and I have been residing there ever since. 8. I say that, since relocating, I have occasionally visited India for short durations, however, I have not stayed in India for more than a few weeks in any calendar or financial year. 9. I say that, in the meantime, my case for A.Y. 2022-2023 was reopened by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2024. 10. I say that, being located overseas, I was completely dependent upon my tax consultant in India, Mr Sunil Lalwani, for handling my income tax matters, including filing of return of income and representation before the Income Tax Department. 11. I say that accordingly, Mr Sunil Lalwani attended the reassessment proceeding and made submissions before the Assessing Officer from time to time 12. I say that, during the pendency of the reassessment proceedings, from late February 2025 onwards, I underwent a preventive medical evaluation and follow-up monitoring for suspected Tuberculosis exposure in Australia. As part of this process, I was placed on weekly TB preventive therapy administered every Thursday, involving multiple tablets which caused side effects including fatigue, acidity and reduced concentration [Annexure A: Health Undertaking Letter, TB Screening Referral, Pathology Request, Email Correspondence with Treating Health Authorities and Google Weekly Medication Reminder Records]. 13. I say that, on 24 February 2025, my wife, Simmerjeet Kaur, and my son joined me in Australia. Unfortunately, all rental applications were declineddue to the absence of any prior rental history in Australia. [Annexure B Rental Application Rejection Emails). 14. I say that, despite applying to multiple rental properties in Jerrabomberra, Googong and Phillip between February and April 2025, we were unable to secure accommodation. Consequently, we initially stayed in shared accommodation with friends while continuing our search for stable housing

4 ITA No.8853/Mum/2025 Geetinder Singh 15. I say that during the same period, the admission process for my son's schooling in Australia required the submission of residential proof within the school catchment area. The school authorities specifically required confirmation of residential address documentation to proceed with the enrolment process for my son. The relevant email correspondence with Jerrabomberra High School regarding submission of residential proof and scheduling of the enrolment interview is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure C. 16. I say that, due to the combined impact of medical treatment fatigue, relocation stress, housing difficulties and family settlement responsibilities, I resigned from my employment on 25.03 2025. [Annexure D: Resignation Email dated 25.03.2025]. 17. I say that because of the above circumstances, including medical treatment and settlement challenges in a new country, I was unable to regularly monitormy emails or fully coordinate with my tax consultant regarding the ongoing reassessment proceedings. 18. I say that consequently, the reassessment order dated 29.03.2025 came to be passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. The last date for filing an appeal against the said reassessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was 28.04.2025 19. I say that, after resignation from my employment on 25.03.2025, 1 actively applied for several job opportunities to re-establish financial stability [Annexure E: Email correspondence evidencing job applications, follow-ups, interviews and unsuccessful outcomes]. 20. I say that, however, I remained unemployed for several months, which significantly increased my financial and emotional stress. 21. I say that after the reassessment order was passed, I had requested my tax consultant, Mr Sunil Lalwani, to take necessary steps, including filing of an appeal. 22. I say that, as stated above, I underwent a preventive medical evaluation for suspected Tuberculosis exposure. Therefore, throughout this period, I relied in good faith on my tax consultant in India, Mr Sunil Lalwani, who assured me that the appeal would be filed. Owing to the time zone differences between India and Australia, my medical condition and responsibilities ofsettling my family in a new country, I relied on his assurances and believed that the matter was being handled appropriately. 23. I say that MrLalwani had also requested me to make payment of the statutory appeal fee for filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Ld. CIT(A)'] 24. I say that the preventative therapy continued till September 2025, involving multiple tablets that caused fatigue, acidity and reduced concentration. Therefore, due to the severe stress, ongoing medical treatment and follow-up regarding my TB preventive therapy, I could not

5 ITA No.8853/Mum/2025 Geetinder Singh properly coordinate with MrLalwani between March 2025 and July 2025 regarding payment of the appeal fee and confirmation of filing of the appeal. 25. I say that it was only towards the end of July 2025, when I contacted Mr. Lalwani in relation to another tax-related matter, that I came to know that the appeal had not been filed before the Ld. CIT (A). 26. I say that, immediately thereafter, I took steps to file an appeal by making payment of the statutory appeal fees on 06.08.2025, and the appeal was thereafter filed on 08.08.2025. 27. I say that, accordingly, there was a delay of 102 [One hundred and two] days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).28 I say that, during the first appeal proceedings, in response to the notice of hearing dated 13.10.2025, my tax consultant had filed a detailed written submission dated 23.10.2025, including an explanation regarding the reason for the delay in filing the appeal 29. I say that thereafter no further notices were issued, and an order came to be passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 29.10.2025 dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation. 30. I say that, immediately, on 20.12.2025, an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal within the limitation period.” The Ld. AR contended that the supporting medical documents are duly annexed in APB page 1 to 70. The Ld. AR prayed for condoning the delay & remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

6 ITA No.8853/Mum/2025 Geetinder Singh causes beyond the control of the assessee. The assessee, being a Non-Resident Indian, was residing in Australia and has duly explained the circumstances leading to the delay by way of a notarized affidavit, supported by relevant documentary evidences, including medical records and details of relocation, employment, and family settlement issues. From the record, it is further evident that the assessment was completed ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. The explanation furnished by the assessee demonstrates that he was undergoing medical treatment and was simultaneously facing significant personal and professional constraints, including relocation and dependence on his tax consultant for handling tax matters in India. In our considered view, these facts constitute a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 249 of the Act. We, therefore, find that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation without properly appreciating the factual matrix and without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. The principles of natural justice require that a litigant should not be denied adjudication on merits when a reasonable cause for delay is demonstrated. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the impugned order. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits and pass a speaking order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issues independently, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation during the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7 ITA No.8853/Mum/2025 Geetinder Singh 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.8853/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 02nd day of April 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 02/04/2026 SAUMYASr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI