SANJEEV BHASKARAN MENON,MUMBAI vs. ITO-28(3)(1), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1234/Mum/2026 (Assessment year: 2012-13)

Sanjeev Bhaskaran Menon vs ITO, Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai A/10 Airline Colleagues C Tulsi Income Tax Office, Vashi Railway Baug, DR. Charat Singh Road Station Building, Navi Mumbai- Chakala, Andheri (East) 400703 Mumbai-400093 PAN:AKLPM7607E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Mitesh Gupta Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr.DR) Date of hearing : 16/04/2026 Date of pronouncement : 22/04/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-13, date of order 11.07.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer ward 28(3)(1) (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act date of order 03.12.2019.

2 ITA No.1234/Mum/2026 Sanjeev Bhaskaran Menon 2. The registry informed that the appeal was filed with a delay for 126 days delay. The assessee has executed a notarized affidavit on 02.03.2026 and explained the delay for filing the same. The assessee stated that the assessee is staying out side India and is not convergent with the appellate procedure. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submission of the assessee. Accordingly, we find that there is a sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal for 126 days. Accordingly, we condone the delay for filing the appeal before us and the appeal is taken for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file the return. Thereafter a notice u/sec. 148 was issued by the Ld. AO receiving information from AIR in the NMS portal of ITD that the assessee sold the immovable property amount to Rs. 42lakh. The assessment order has been passed exparte with addition of amount to Rs.42,00,000/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) with the delay of 02 years 08 months. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the no reason was submitted by the assessee for delay in filing appeal. So, contravening provision of section 249(2) of the Act the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee on limine without considering the merit of the case. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. DR argued and stated that assessee had not filed the condonation petition before the Ld. CIT(A). No explanation of delay for filing appeal in Form No.35 was filed and not carrying the sufficient cause for delay. He stands in favor of the orders of revenue authorities.

3 ITA No.1234/Mum/2026 Sanjeev Bhaskaran Menon 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 2 years and 8 months. The assessee has not filed any application seeking condonation of such substantial delay. We further note that the assessment order was also passed ex parte. At both stages, the assessee failed to furnish supporting evidence in substantiation of his claims. In these circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned appellate order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction that the assessee shall file a proper application for condonation of delay along with a detailed explanation. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the matter afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering all relevant issues. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, which shall not prejudice the proceedings in the set-aside appeal. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings, and the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issues in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the net result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.1234/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd day of April 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 22/04/2026 SAUMYASr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant ,

4 ITA No.1234/Mum/2026 Sanjeev Bhaskaran Menon 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI