MADHURI J DHOLAKIA (DECEASED),MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(2)(2), MUMBAI/, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1318/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 April 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the plausible reasons provided by the legal heir. Due to the death of the assessee and the absence of proper submissions, the case was remanded back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay. The assessee had passed away, and the legal heir claimed unawareness of notices due to technical unfamiliarity and personal illness. The Assessing Officer had made an addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the case should be remanded for a fresh adjudication due to the death of the assessee and lack of proper submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 150

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE JAGADISH

Pronounced: 29.04.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 17.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

At the outset it is observed that there is a delay of 158 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed as under: -

“That in the instant case, the assessment order dated 23.05.2023 was passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved thereby, the deceased Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the addition of ₹92,47,500/- made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 23.08.2022. The Ld. Commissioner, however, vide order dated 17.06.2025, dismissed the appeal and upheld the said addition. It is respectfully submitted that during the appellate proceedings, notices under section 150 of the Act were issued in the name of the deceased Assessee and uploaded on the e-filing portal of the legal heir. However, due to lack of technical knowledge and unfamiliarity with the ITBA/Income Tax portal, the legal heir was unaware that such notices would appear only under the “Legal Heir” section and not on the regular dashboard. Consequently, the notices did not come to his knowledge. Further, the legal heir was suffering from spondylitis and was under medical treatment from 05.05.2025 to 28.06.2025, during which he was advised complete bed rest and was unable to monitor the proceedings. The legal heir became aware of the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 only upon receipt of a physical recovery notice on 10.12.2025. Thereafter, due to unavoidable family circumstances requiring frequent outstation travel, there was further delay. Upon return, the legal heir promptly sought professional assistance and filed the present appeal. The delay of 150 days in filing the appeal is bona fide, unintentional, and due to circumstances beyond control. It is therefore humbly prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice.

3.

On the contrary, the ld. D.R. rejected the claim of the Assessee.

4.

Having considered the above reasons, as demonstrated by the Assessee, for condonation of delay which are otherwise supported with duly sworn affidavit as plausible, reasonable and unintentional, the delay of 158 days in filing of instant appeal is condoned.

5.

Coming to the merit of the case, it is observed that the ld. Commissioner though afforded various opportunities to the Assessee by issuing notices dated 15.05.2025, 29.05.2025 and 06.06.2025, however, the Assessee evidently made no response and therefore, in the absence of relevant submissions and documents, the ld. Commissioner was constrained to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and ultimately affirmed the aforesaid addition/disallowance made by the AO.

6.

As observed above, the Assessee has expired and the Assessee’s son has filed the instant appeal and claimed that he was not acquainted with the notices issued during the appellate proceedings by the ld. Commissioner therefore, the reason stated prima facie seems to be a reasonable cause for non-appearance before the ld. Commissioner.

7.

Even otherwise, the issue involved also remains to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of relevant submissions and documents, which remains to be filed due to death of the Assessee and/or non-compliance by the legal heir of the Assessee. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. We clarify that the Assessee would be at liberty to raise legal grounds as well, in addition to the grounds already raised before the ld. Commissioner.

8.

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

(Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary Copy to: MADHURI J DHOLAKIA (DECEASED), 31-B, BHAGWATI BHAVAN, ,PEDDAR ROAD, RUSSIAN, CULTURAL LANE, 1 MUMBAI 400026, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA WARD 19(2)(2), MUMBAI/, 2 PIRAMAL CHAMBER,MUMBAI, MUMBAI- 400012, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →