ANSHUMAN BHATIA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order dated 12/01/2026 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld.CIT(A)”] for A.Y. 2015-16, on the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. Because it is fully explained that any of the column of specified list of remittance is not applicable to the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre(FAC) Delhi both have erred and acted illegally in not taken into account this aspect of fact. 1

ITA 3072/MUM/2026 ANSHUMAN BHATIA 2. Because it was fully explained that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure instead the assessee has remitted the amount for himself to USA. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred and acted illegally in applying the provision of section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi has also erred and acted illegally in confirming the same. 3. Because the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred and acted illegally under wrong notion of facts and law to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) Delhi has erred and acted illegally in confirming the same. 4. Because the assessment is bad both on facts and in law and not maintainable.

ITA 3072/MUM/2026 ANSHUMAN BHATIA mail account. The assessee also submitted that the Aadhaar-PAN linkage was completed subsequently. 2.2. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, rejected the condonation petition holding that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay. However, despite rejecting the application for condonation of delay, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits and confirmed the additions made by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A) was accompanied by a petition seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. However, the Ld. CIT(A) neither adjudicated the condonation petition by passing a reasoned order nor afforded any opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the reasons furnished therein. 3.1. The Ld. AR further submitted that although the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to discuss and decide the issues on merits, no effective opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee. It was argued that no notice fixing the appeal for hearing was served upon the assessee and, consequently, the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to furnish supporting documents and evidences in respect of the addition made by the Ld. AO. 3.2. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order suffers from procedural irregularity and violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It was prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard

ITA 3072/MUM/2026 ANSHUMAN BHATIA and after considering the evidences proposed to be filed by the assessee. 3.3. The Ld. DR relied upon the findings recorded in the impugned order. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had examined the material available on record and adjudicated the issues arising in the appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that sufficient opportunities were provided during the appellate proceedings and, therefore, no prejudice had been caused to the assessee. 3.4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. DR fairly submitted that if this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the issue relating to condonation of delay has not been properly adjudicated or that adequate opportunity of hearing was not granted to the assessee, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with law. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before this Tribunal. 4. The short issue arising for our consideration is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the assessee's application seeking condonation of delay and consequently dismissing the appeal. 4.1. It is an undisputed fact that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with a delay of approximately five months and twenty- three days. The explanation furnished by the assessee was that he has been residing in the USA since 2014 and, on account of his continuous travel and bona fide circumstances, he could not access the notices and assessment order which were received in the registered e-mail account and remained unnoticed. It was also submitted that immediately upon becoming aware of the assessment proceedings and the assessment order, the assessee

ITA 3072/MUM/2026 ANSHUMAN BHATIA took steps to file the appeal along with a petition seeking condonation of delay. 4.2. In our considered opinion, while adjudicating an application for condonation of delay, the approach of the appellate authority should be guided by the well-settled principle that the expression "sufficient cause" deserves a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that a liberal approach should ordinarily be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. 4.3. In the present case, we find that the explanation offered by the assessee cannot be said to be inherently improbable or lacking in bona fides. The assessee is admittedly an NRI residing outside India. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate, intentional or attributable to any mala fide conduct. On the contrary, the explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be bona fide and deserves consideration from the standpoint of substantial justice rather than a strict technical approach. 4.4. We further note that the right of appeal is a valuable statutory right and denial of adjudication on merits merely on account of a technical lapse, particularly where sufficient cause has been shown, would result in miscarriage of justice. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adopted a liberal approach while considering the assessee's explanation for the delay. 4.5. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the delay deserved to be condoned. The rejection of the condonation petition by 5

ITA 3072/MUM/2026 ANSHUMAN BHATIA adopting a hyper-technical approach has resulted in denial of an effective opportunity to the assessee to contest the additions on merits. Such an approach, in our opinion, is not in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (supra) and other judicial precedents governing condonation of delay. 4.6. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues arising in the appeal afresh on merits after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after considering all evidences and submissions that may be placed on record. Needless to state, the assessee shall extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and shall promptly furnish all details and documentary evidences called for by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/06/2026

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 11/06/2026 SC. Sr. P.S.

ITA 3072/MUM/2026 ANSHUMAN BHATIA Copy to: ANSHUMAN BHATIA , C/O, SUBHASH CHAND ADVOCATE B- 38/1 PLOT NO 6 TULSIPUR 1 MAHMOORGANJ VARANASI, VARANASI-221010, UTTAR PRADESH

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(2)(1), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BKC 2 BANDR EAST, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE