MAHESH GULABRAI BADLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4645/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mahesh Gulabrai ITO Ward 28(2)(1) Badlani IT Office, Vashi 1601, Satyam Valley, Vs. Railway Station Sector 26, Vashi, Navi Building, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 703 – 400 703. PAN/GIR No. ADGPB9486J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shree Kumar C, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 17.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"],under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] dated 21.02.2026 for the assessment year 2010-11.

2 ITA No. 4645/Mum/2026 Mahesh Gulabrai Badlani 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and upon perusal of the material available on record.

3 ITA No. 4645/Mum/2026 Mahesh Gulabrai Badlani to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under section 148. 5. According to the Assessing Officer, notices issued during the reassessment proceedings either remained unserved or were returned with postal remarks such as “Left” and “Left/Not Known”. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer obtained details from the office of the Sub-Registrar and noticed that the assessee had sold Flat No. B-606, Laxminarayan Complex, Plot No.3, Sector-12A, Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai for a consideration of Rs. 33,30,000/-. Since no details regarding cost of acquisition were available on record, the Assessing Officer estimated the cost of acquisition at Rs. 7,30,000/- on the basis of enquiries made regarding prevailing market rates and after granting indexation determined the long-term capital gain at Rs. 22,46,996/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act by assessing total income at Rs. 22,47,000/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) noticed that the appeal had been filed with a delay of about 1866 days. The learned CIT(A) observed that although the appeal was filed belatedly, the

4 ITA No. 4645/Mum/2026 Mahesh Gulabrai Badlani assessee had not filed any petition seeking condonation of delay. The learned CIT(A), therefore, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. The learned CIT(A) further observed that despite issuance of notices of hearing, no effective submissions were filed on behalf of the assessee and accordingly proceeded to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have considered the material available on record and the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative. 9. We find that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that the delay of 1866 days in filing the appeal was not supported by any petition seeking condonation of delay. We further note that while reproducing the statement of facts filed by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) has recorded the assessee's contention that none of the notices issued during the reassessment proceedings were served upon him and that the assessee became aware of the demand only upon receipt of an e- mail from the Income-tax Department in July, 2023. It was further stated that certified copies of the assessment records were thereafter obtained through the authorised representative and that the assessment order was uploaded on the income-tax portal only on 07.08.2023. 10. In our considered opinion, although no formal petition seeking condonation of delay appears to have been filed before the learned CIT(A), the statement of facts reproduced in the impugned order discloses circumstances which prima facie

5 ITA No. 4645/Mum/2026 Mahesh Gulabrai Badlani constitute an explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The learned CIT(A) has not examined the correctness or sufficiency of such explanation because no formal application for condonation was before him. At the same time, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be denied an opportunity to place a proper condonation petition supported by relevant material before the first appellate authority, particularly when the assessee seeks to challenge not only the addition on merits but also the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the alleged non-service of statutory notices. 11. The principles of natural justice require that a litigant should ordinarily be afforded an opportunity to explain the delay and have such explanation adjudicated upon on merits. In the peculiar facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee to place a proper petition seeking condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A). 12. During the course of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative fairly stated that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the issue of condonation of delay and thereafter for disposal of the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 13. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file. The

6 ITA No. 4645/Mum/2026 Mahesh Gulabrai Badlani assessee is directed to file a proper petition seeking condonation of delay together with all supporting facts and evidences within such time as may be granted by the learned CIT(A). Upon receipt of such petition, the learned CIT(A) shall first adjudicate the issue relating to condonation of delay in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the event the delay is condoned, the learned CIT(A) shall thereafter adjudicate all grounds raised by the assessee, including the jurisdictional grounds and the grounds on merits, by way of a speaking order in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to both parties.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 19/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A)

7 ITA No. 4645/Mum/2026 Mahesh Gulabrai Badlani 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