EMERALD ACRES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: E BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 632 and 633/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assmt. Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EMERALD ACRES PRIVATE OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LIMITED 3(1)(1), MUMBAI BAJAJ GROUP 2ND FLOOR, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AAYAKAR BAJAJ BHAWAN, 226, Vs. BHAWAN JAMNALAL BAJAJ ROAD,, MUMBAI-400021, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA (अपीलाथ� Appellant) (��थ� Respondent) Permanent Account Number of AABCE6234G Assessee: िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee represented by: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue represented Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR by:

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 23-Apr-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 08.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) - Delhi vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083043158(1) dated 27.11.2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1083043455(1) dated 27.11.2025 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

ITA No. 632/Mum/2026

1) Ground-1 ALLEGED DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AND CONDONATION OF SUCH ALLEGED DELAY: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT (Appeals)] erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that there was delay of 49 days in in filing the appeal. The Appellant states that there was no delay at all in filing the appeal which was heard several times in physical mode as well as virtual mode by different CIT(Appeals) who never brought up the issue relating to alleged delay in filing the appeal. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and without calling for explanation for the alleged delay thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Kindly refer Grounds of Appeals. 2) Ground-2 COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RS. 62,38,895/-: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in arriving at income at Rs.62,38,895/- under the head Income from Other Sources. The learned Assessing Officer erred in alleging that the Appellant has not carried on any business. The learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the true nature of the activities and the underlying concept of the business carried on by the Appellant. It is submitted that these activities do constitute a Business and cannot be brushed aside and ignored. The learned Assessing Officer further erred in concluding that the amount paid by the Appellant under various agreements for acquiring various rights/purchase of land parcels was in the nature of a Debt. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the details and explanations furnished by the Appellant. Kindly refer Grounds of Appeals

ITA No. 633/Mum/2026

1) Ground-1 ALLEGED DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AND CONDONATION OF SUCH ALLEGED DELAY: 1.1On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT (Appeals)] erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that there was delay of 8 days in in filing the appeal. The Appellant states that there was no delay at all in filing the appeal which was heard several times in physical mode as well as virtual mode by different CIT(Appeals) who never brought up the issue relating to alleged delay in filing the appeal. 1.2. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and without calling for explanation for the alleged small delay of 8 days thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Kindly refer Grounds of Appeals 2) Ground-2 COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RS. 1,58,01,367/-: 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in arriving at income at Rs.1,58,01,367/- under the head Income from Other Sources. 2.2 The learned Assessing Officer erred in alleging that the Appellant has not carried on any business. The learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the true nature of the activities and the underlying concept of the business carried on by the Appellant. It is submitted that these activities do constitute a Business and cannot be brushed aside and ignored. 2.3 The learned Assessing Officer further erred in concluding that the amount paid by the Appellant under various agreements for acquiring various rights/purchase of land parcels was in the nature of a Debt. Kindly refer Grounds of Appeals. 3) Ground-3 INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RS. 11,67,459/-: 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,67,459/- made by the learned Assessing Officer by assessing the same under the head Income from House Property. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) and the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the details and explanations furnished by the Appellant. 3.3 The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the property was still under construction, and no occupation/possession of the property was handed over to the Appellant. Hence the basic condition of invoking section 22 of the Act is not satisfied. 3.4 The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that both the concerned properties are held by the Appellant as part of its Inventories and hence provision of Section 22 of the Act do not get attracted Kindly refer Grounds of Appeals

3.1. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has attended the hearings which took place during the regime when those used to take place in a physical mode and made all the necessary submissions. These appeals were filed in the year 2016 and physical hearings took place in the year 2019 and 2020. Subsequently, regime of faceless appellate proceedings were initiated by the Department in the month of September, 2020 whereupon all the pending appeals were moved into the faceless regime. Even during the faceless hearings, assessee was issued notices fixing the date of hearing which were complied with. Assessee has furnished a tabulated detail giving chronology of all these events both for the physical hearings and the hearings before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The same is extracted below for ready reference:

Particular Assessment Order under Section 143(3) Date of Order - 23.03.2016 Date of Receipt - 13.05.2016 Date of Filing an Appeal - 10.06.2016 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS PHYSICAL HEARINGS SR. Date of Notice Due Date for Date of Compliance No. Compliance 1 06.11.2019 15.11.2019 15.11.2019 2 27.11.2019 16.12.2019 16.12.2019 3 13.02.2020 21.02.2020 21.02.2020 4 03.03.2020 12.03.2020 03.03.2020 HEARINGS BEFORE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE - (NFAC)

SR. Date of Notice Due Date for Date of Compliance No. Compliance 1 15.12.2022 26.12.2022 23.12.2022 2 29.04.2023 15.05.2023 15.05.2023 3 20.12.2023 04.01.2023 03.01.2024 4 29.08.2025 15.09.2025 15.09.2025 5 11.11.2025 21.11.2025 13.11.2025 Appellate Order under Section 250 Dated 27.11.2025

3.2. Assessee has furnished a paper book containing 61 pages wherein several notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) fixing the dates of hearings are enclosed. Assessee has also enclosed copies of responses which were filed for each of the notices issued by ld. CIT(A). Index of the said paper book is extracted below: Sr. PARTICULARS PAGE NO. No. 1 Chronology of Events. 1 2 Notice of Demand indicating date of receipt: 13.05.2016. 2 3 First Page of Assessment Order under Section 143(3) 3 indicating date of receipt: 13.05.2016 4 Notice under Section 250 dated 06.11.2019 4 5 Response to the above Notice dated 15.11.2019 5 6 Notice under Section 250 dated 27.11.2019 6 7 Response to the above Notice dated 16.12.2019 7 8 Notice under Section 250 dated 13.02.2020 8 9 Response to the above Notice dated 21.02.2020 9 10 Notice under Section 250 dated 03.03.2020 10 11 Response to the above Notice dated 03.03.2020 11 12 Notice under Section 250 dated 15.12.2022 12-15 13 Acknowledgements of Written submissions dated 16 23.12.2022 14 Notice under Section 250 dated 29.04.2023 17-20 15 Acknowledgements of Written submissions dated 21-28 15.05.2023 16 Notice under Section 250 dated 20.12.2023 29-32 17 Acknowledgements of Written submissions dated 33-39 03.01.2024 18 Notice under Section 250 dated 29.08.2025 40-43 19 Acknowledgements of Written submissions dated 44-49 15.09.2025 20 Notice under Section 250 dated 11.11.2025 50-53 21 Acknowledgements of Written submissions dated 54-61 13.11.2025 3.3. For ready reference, we reproduce two such notices, one issued during the physical regime and another issued during the faceless regime:

3.4. Contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee is that assessee has made all the submissions and attended the dates of hearing fixed from time to time in both the regimes. Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not considering the same to adjudicate on the merits of the case but chose to dismiss the appeals on technical ground of being barred by limitation and holding it as not maintainable.

4.1. In the present case before us, as factually tabulated above, ld. CIT(A) has issued communications through several notices asking submissions from the assessee on the grounds of appeal raised by it to which assessee has responded. Thus, in the given set of facts and respectfully considering the view expressed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we hold that dismissal of appeal in limine by ld. CIT(A) on account of not condoning the delay by treating it as not maintainable despite issuing notices fixing the dates of hearing is not correct and not justifiable. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is condoned. Since ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated on the merits of the case, we remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo meritorious adjudication of the grounds raised at the first appellate stage.

4.2. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made by him. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in making all his submissions, so as to comply with the notices for hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the first appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 08 June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 08 June, 2026 MP, Sr.P.S. Copy to: 1 The Appellant 2 The Respondent 3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4 Guard File 5 CIT BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai