KRISHNAKANT KISHOR PALAV,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

dated 23.10.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised following

grounds of appeal;

i. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in mentioning that there has been a delay of 1943 days in filing the appeal before his good self The Learned CIT(A) has ignored that the  The Demand was confirmed by Learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 30th November 2023  Appeal filed before his good self on 11 January 2024  Further, the Covid-period has not been considered. ii. The Learned CIT(A) has not considered the facts and circumstances of the given case before dismissing the case in limine. iii. The action of the Learned CIT(A) are contrary to the view fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Shelly Products (261 ITR 367) wherein the Court observed that, if any assessee on account of inadvertent mistake or ignorance included in his income any amount which is exempt from income-tax or is not income within the contemplation of the law, the assessee may bring this to the notice of the income-tax authorities, which if satisfied may grant relief and refund the excess taxes paid.

iv. The CPC/ learned Assessing Officer has failed to act in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 14 dated 11 April 1955 which provides the following: "Officers of the department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. Although the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with the assessee, on whom it is imposed by law; officers should- a. draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reasons or other; b. freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refund and reliefs."

v. Tax cannot be levied on notional income. The action of Learned CIT(A) is contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution of India which provided that no tax shall be collected or levied except with the authority of law. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short ‘AR’) of the assessee submits

that the assessee is individual and during financial year 2016-17, relevant to

assessment year (AY) 2017-18, the assessee was employed with Capgemini

India Private Limited from 01.04.2016 to 07.11.2016 and subsequently joined

MSCI Services Private Limited where he served for remaining five months.

The total salary from both the employer during the relevant financial year

was Rs. 10,31,378/-. However, while filing return, the assessee got confused

between income from salary and gross total income and forgot to claim

certain exemptions. The assessee, inadvertently, declared salary income from

next financial year instead of current assessment year thereby offered excess

income and also claimed TDS credit of subsequent year. The return of income

was processed by CPC and a demand of Rs. 1,18,640/- was created. The

assessee filed revised return of income on 07.06.2018. The revised return of income was not accepted. The assessee filed application under section 154

on 19.12.2018 which was rejected vide order dated 17.08.2018. The

assessee again filed rectification application on 15.03.2019 which was

rejected also vide order dated 17.04.2019. Aggrieved by the action of

AO/CPC, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 11.01.2024. The appeal

of assessee was dismissed in limine by not condoning delay in filing appeal.

Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal.

CIT(A) is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee was pursuing

alternative remedy by filing repeated application before CPC. The CPC/AO

instead of considering the case of assessee sympathetically, has rejected for

technical reasons. In fact, the assessee was pursuing alternative remedy

under bona fide mistake. There was no intentional or deliberate delay in filing

appeal. Substantial part of intervening period is covered by the Covid period,

which has not been considered by ld CIT(A). The Ld. AR of the assessee

submits that the assessee has good case on merits and is likely to succeed.

On merit, the ld AR of the assessee submits that he has a very limited prayer

to restored the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional AO to consider correct

taxable income during the relevant financial year and to pass the order

afresh. He undertakes on behalf of assessee to provide complete details of

his salary income earned during the relevant financial year.

not explained the delay. The delay may not be condoned. The assessee is relying on self serving story, which is not sufficient to condone the delay in

filing appeal before ld CIT(A).

through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that the first appeal

of assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT (A) on the ground that the assessee

failed to explain the delay in filing appeal. Before us, the Ld. AR of the

assessee vehemently argued that there is no intentional delay and that the

assessee was pursuing alternative remedy by filing application under Section

AO/CPC on merit nor CIT(A) admitted the appeal for adjudication on merit.

We find that the assessee is in fact interested in contesting its case on merit.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts of the case, delay in filing appeal before

CIT(A) is condoned. Further, considering the facts that the assessee has filed

original return of income, which was revised by assessee. As per the stand of

assessee, the assessee inadvertently not claimed certain exemption and also

included certain income of subsequent year due to bonafide mistake.

Therefore, matter is restored back to the file of Jurisdictional AO to

reconsider the matter afresh and also consider revise return and pass the

assessment order afresh and in accordance with law. The AO is further

directed to consider the Form 26AS as well as Form 12BB while determining

the correct taxable income. Needless to direct that before passing the order,

the AO shall provide fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The

assessee is directed to be more vigilant in future and to provide complete details to the AO. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order was pronounced on 04/06/2026 in open Court.

Sd/- Sd/-

MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

MUMBAI, Dated: 04/06/2026 Z.U., P.S

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 ITAT, Mumbai

Page 5 of 6