PADMAJA PRAMOD GAWAS,MUMBAI vs. WARD 42(1)(4), MUMBA, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4136/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Padmaja Pramod ITO Ward 42(1)(4) Gawas C41-43, Avenue 3, B-104 Auriage Vs. Near Videsh Bhavan, Residency Thakur G Block, BKC, Gilban Complex, Next to Area, Bandra Kurla Terapanth Bhavan, Complex, Bandra East, Kandivali East S.O. Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 101 PAN/GIR No. AHHPG2773J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shree Kumar C., Ld. DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter

2 ITA No. 4136/Mum/2026 Padmaja Pramod Gawas referred to as "the Act"] for Assessment Year 2020-21, arising out of the assessment order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(1)(4), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

Ground 1 – Reopening u/s 147 Without Valid Jurisdiction The Ld. AO erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 as there was no valid "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. The reopening was solely based on SFT information relating to a joint property purchase, without independent application of mind as to escapement of income attributable to the Appellant specifically. The notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) are therefore without jurisdiction, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed. Ground 2 – Premature and Illegal Invocation of Section 144 The Ld. AO grossly erred in invoking section 144 to complete a best judgment assessment despite the Appellant having filed a detailed physical reply with 46 pages of documentary evidence. Invoking section 144 without adequate and proper consideration of the submitted evidence is contrary to the provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice. Ground 3 – Violation of Natural Justice The Ld. AO failed to consider and evaluate the documents submitted vide reply dated 21.02.2025. No reasons were recorded for rejection of the evidence. The entire addition was made mechanically on the ground of non-compliance, ignoring the substantive reply and documents placed on record. This is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and the mandate of section 144. Ground 4 – Erroneous Addition u/s 69 – Joint Purchase The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming Rs.28,82,720/- as "unexplained investment" u/s 69 in the hands of the Appellant alone, when:

3 ITA No. 4136/Mum/2026 Padmaja Pramod Gawas (a) The property was jointly purchased by the Appellant and her husband, Mr. Pramod Shankar Gawas; and (b) The funds (unsecured loans of Rs.16.25 lakhs and agricultural income of Rs.8.50 lakhs) were credited in and disbursed from the husband's bank account. Investment from the husband's own sources cannot be attributed as unexplained income in the hands of the Appellant. Ground 5 – Dismissal on Delay Without Adjudication on Merits The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on account of delay without adjudicating the same on merits, despite the fact that: (a) A Condonation of Delay application was duly filed explaining the unavoidable circumstances causing the delay, which was neither wilful nor deliberate; (b) It is settled law that delay in filing appeals should be liberally condoned where sufficient cause is shown; (c) Dismissal in limine without considering the condonation application amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. Ground 6 – Wrongful Application of Section 115BBE The Ld. AO erred in applying section 115BBE to the alleged addition u/s 69. Ground 7 – Inclusion of Stamp Duty and Registration Charges in Unexplained Investment The Ld. AO erred in including stamp duty, registration charges and other incidental charges while computing alleged unexplained investment. Ground 8 – Initiation of Penalty Proceedings The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Ground 9 – General

4 ITA No. 4136/Mum/2026 Padmaja Pramod Gawas The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds. Brief Facts of the Case 3. The assessee, an individual, was subjected to reassessment proceedings on the basis of information received through the Insight Portal regarding purchase of an immovable property for Rs.92,00,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the property had been acquired with the aid of a housing loan of Rs. 69,00,000/- and that the balance funds were sourced through unsecured loans and agricultural income of her husband. The Assessing Officer, however, held that the assessee had failed to substantiate the source of the balance investment and, after considering stamp duty, registration charges and other incidental expenses, treated Rs.28,82,720/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2025. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the aforesaid assessment order. The learned CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating the issues on merits. The decision of the learned CIT(A) contained in paragraph 7.3 of the appellate order reads as under: "During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has furnished the written submission and the same is perused by the undersigned. The appellant has filed this appeal belatedly by 164 days. The appellant has not furnished any valid reason for delay in filing appeal.

5 ITA No. 4136/Mum/2026 Padmaja Pramod Gawas Further, the appellant has to establish the reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal. In the case of the appellant, the reasonable cause is not established. Therefore, the delay in filing appeal is not condoned and the case is not taken up for adjudication on merit." 5. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative (DR) and perusing the material available on record. 6. The learned DR fairly submitted that the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of the grounds raised by the assessee on merits and has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay. It was further submitted that, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. 7. We have considered the material available on record and the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative. 8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that though the assessee had raised several grounds challenging the validity of reopening, the addition made u/s 69 of the Act, application of section 115BBE, and initiation of penalty proceedings, the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of those grounds. The appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground that the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained.

6 ITA No. 4136/Mum/2026 Padmaja Pramod Gawas 9. At the same time, the impugned order does not indicate that any detailed examination of the condonation application or the explanation offered by the assessee was undertaken. More importantly, no finding whatsoever has been rendered on any of the substantive grounds raised before the first appellate authority. 10. The powers vested in the CIT(A) carry with them a corresponding obligation to adjudicate the issues arising from the assessment order. In the facts of the present case, the impugned order does not contain any decision on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessee has been deprived of a decision by the first appellate authority on the issues arising out of the assessment order. 11. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly having regard to the fact that the issues raised by the assessee have not been examined on merits by the learned CIT(A), we deem it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to set aside the impugned order and restore the entire matter to the file of the learned CIT(A). 12. The learned CIT(A) shall first consider the issue relating to condonation of delay in accordance with law and thereafter adjudicate all the grounds raised by the assessee on merits by passing a speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7 ITA No. 4136/Mum/2026 Padmaja Pramod Gawas 13. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions or on the validity of the reopening proceedings and all issues are left open for adjudication by the learned CIT(A).

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 24/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai