SARITA VIJAYKUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-41(1)(4) , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7072/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2026AY 2013-20144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a liberal approach should be taken for condoning delays to ensure substantial justice prevails over procedural defects. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the case was reopened based on information regarding unique client code modification. The Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs. 62,91,308/-. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 296-day delay in filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR
Hearing: 24.02.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No.7072/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Ms. Sarita Vijaykumar Gupta, 1202, Odyssey-2, Hiranandani Ward 41(1)(4), Vs. Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400076 PAN: ADUPG5729R (Appellant) (Respondent) :

: Shri Chetan Mahore, AR Assessee by Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Date of Hearing : 24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 15.05.2026

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2013-14.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed her return of income declaring total income at Rs.49,08,200/-. The assessee's case was reopened vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.06.2021 based on the information during enquiry conducted in the case of Anand Rathi Commodities Ltd. that it had indulged in Unique Client Code Modification in which the assessee was said to be one of the beneficiaries

where she had transacted an amount of Rs.92,26,024/-. After duly considering the

ITA No.7072/Mum/2025 Ms. Sarita Vijaykumar Gupta assessee's submission the Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO” for short) passed the assessment

order dated 29.05.2023 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total

income at Rs.49,08,200/- same as that of the returned income of the assessee, whereas in

the computation the Ld. AO determined total income at Rs.62,91,308/-.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal challenging the excessive computation of

Rs.12,73,130/- before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 21.08.2025

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 296

days in filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld.

CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

It is observed that the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. AO in computing the

capital gain from sale of shares at an amount higher than what was actually earned and

disclosed by the assessee where in the computation the Ld. AO had determined the total

income in excess of the amount declared by the assessee by Rs.12,73,313/-. Before the Ld.

CIT(A), the assessee is said to have filed the first appeal with a delay of 296 days for which

the assessee had filed an application for condoning the delay stating the following reason:

"The delay in responding to the demand was attributed to the necessity of collecting requisite documentation and support to adequately address the requirements outlined. This process required additional time, resulting in the delay of the response"

6.

The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that there was

no “sufficient cause” explained by the assessee for the said delay in filing the appeal

ITA No.7072/Mum/2025 Ms. Sarita Vijaykumar Gupta beyond the period of limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on various decisions and had

dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without getting into the merits of the case.

7.

On the above factual matrix and upon hearing the rival contentions, we deem it fit

to extend the assessee with one more opportunity to present her case before the first

appellate authority, by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of

justice dispensation. As we are conscious of the fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court and

various Hon’ble High Courts have reiterated that a liberal approach has to be given while

condoning the delay caused to the litigant in filing the appeal beyond the period of

limitation and that substantial justice would nevertheless prevail over procedural

defect. Hence, we remand all the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo

adjudication with the direction that the assessee shall strictly comply with the proceeding

before the Ld. CIT(A) without any undue delay from her side and the Ld. CIT(A) is also

directed to decide the issue on merits of the case and in accordance with law after duly

giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and on considering the documentary

evidences, if any filed by the assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical

purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai; Dated: 15.05.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S.

ITA No.7072/Mum/2025 Ms. Sarita Vijaykumar Gupta Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.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 →