JOY JOHN QUADROS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC both dated 07.11.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On facts and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant without adjudicating the issues on merits and merely on the ground of non-compliance. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 require the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal on merits and that the appeal cannot be dismissed merely for non- prosecution. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the assessment order passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

Joy John Quadros (AY: 2020-21) ITA No. 3224/Mum/2026 4. The learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the investment in immovable property amounting to ₹60,76,319/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the said investment was made from legitimate sources. 5. The learned authorities below failed to consider that the Appellant had genuine reasons for non-compliance during the assessment and appellate proceedings, particularly on account of serious health issues and medical treatment. 6. The addition made under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is arbitrary, excessive, and without proper appreciation of the facts and evidence available on record. 7. The learned Assessing Officer further erred in initiating penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee fairly submits that there is delay of 75 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee was suffering from cardiac problem and was not well and was advised complete medical rest. The copy of prescription of Doctor and medical certificates is already placed on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal may be condoned and matter may be heard on merit. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee was completed under section 144.The ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal in ex- parte proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the liberty to assessee to furnish required details and evidences in support of his claim. 2

Joy John Quadros (AY: 2020-21) ITA No. 3224/Mum/2026 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that bench may consider the delay in filing appeal as per law. However, on merit, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that the assessee is non-compliant though out the assessment as well as before ld CIT(A), in case the bench is of the view that the assessee requires further opportunity, the matter may be restored back to the file of AO instead of ld. CIT(A). In case, the matter is restored to ld. CIT(A), the ld CIT(A) may require remand report from AO and to avoid such long drawn process, it is better to restore the matter to AO. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties.Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay raised by assessee. We find that there is 75 days delay in filing appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that due to medical reason, the assessee could not file appeal in time. Considering the material available on record and the contents of application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that assessee has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence, delay of 75 days in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 5. We find that ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order. The AO while passing assessment order made addition of ₹60,76,319/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act for purchase of immovable property. Thus, keeping in view, the fact that substantial rights of assessee are involved in the present appeal. Therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of AO.

Joy John Quadros (AY: 2020-21) ITA No. 3224/Mum/2026 Needless to direct that before passing the order, the AO shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced at the time of hearing in the open Court on 11/06/2026.

/- S/- /- Sd/- Sd/- MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 11/06/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file.

By Order

Assistant Registrar / DDO ITAT, Mumbai