ABDULHUSEIN ABDULLA MOTIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4662/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Abdulhusein Abdulla Assessing Officer Motiwala Kautilya Bhavan, 1001, Benezet, 1st, Vs. Bandra Kurla TPS-IV, Near Dhanraj Complex, Mumbai- Jewellers Bandra 400 051 (West), Mumbai- 400050 PAN/GIR No. AAAPM8762K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pranav Bhansali (virtually appeared), Ld. AR 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 dated 20.03.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the learned CIT(A)"] under section 250 of the

2 ITA No. 4662/Mum/2026 Abdulhusein Abdulla Motiwala

Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged in the profession of jewellery valuation. The assessee originally filed his return of income under section 139(1) declaring total income of Rs.43,59,830/-. Subsequently, based on information received through the Insight Portal under the High Risk e-Verification Scheme, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act. In response to notice issued under section 148, the assessee filed a return of income on 05.08.2024 declaring total income of Rs.53,86,410/-. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that interest income reflected in departmental records was higher than the income disclosed by the assessee under the head "Income from Other Sources". The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and consequently made an addition of Rs.2,40,157/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" while completing the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B vide order dated 13.01.2025. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The appeal was filed with a delay of 84 days. The learned CIT(A), in paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of the impugned order, recorded the fact of delay and reproduced the explanation furnished by the assessee seeking condonation thereof. The assessee had explained that the delay was

3 ITA No. 4662/Mum/2026 Abdulhusein Abdulla Motiwala

occasioned due to unavoidable personal circumstances, namely travel-related commitments during the relevant period and health-related concerns which restricted his ability to attend to tax matters in a timely manner. The assessee further submitted that the delay was entirely unintentional and requested that the same be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. The learned CIT(A), however, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. Against the said action, the assessee has raised various grounds before us. The principal grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 84 days and in dismissing the appeal despite the explanation furnished by the assessee and despite calling upon the assessee to file submissions on merits. The assessee has also challenged the addition of Rs.2,40,157/- on merits and has raised various grounds relating to the assessment proceedings. 5. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) invited our attention to paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of the impugned order and submitted that the assessee had duly explained the delay of 84 days. It was submitted that the reasons furnished by the assessee constituted sufficient cause within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act and that the learned CIT(A) ought to have adopted a liberal and justice- oriented approach while considering the prayer for condonation of delay. The learned AR further submitted that the learned CIT(A) had issued notices calling for submissions on merits and,

4 ITA No. 4662/Mum/2026 Abdulhusein Abdulla Motiwala

therefore, dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay was not justified. He accordingly prayed that the delay be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 6. The learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that he had no objection if the delay was condoned and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was delayed by 84 days. We further find that the assessee had furnished an explanation attributing the delay to travel-related commitments and health-related concerns. The explanation furnished by the assessee has been reproduced by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order itself. No material has been brought on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the explanation furnished by the assessee was false, mala fide or lacking in bona fides. 8. It is a settled principle of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach should ordinarily be adopted so as to advance substantial justice. In the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. The delay involved is not inordinate and

5 ITA No. 4662/Mum/2026 Abdulhusein Abdulla Motiwala

the explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be bona fide.

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.

6 ITA No. 4662/Mum/2026 Abdulhusein Abdulla Motiwala