DHANSHRI VILAS GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-27(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7902/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 September 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. The Tribunal was satisfied with the explanation offered for the delay, considering the assessee's stated circumstances as a housewife unfamiliar with electronic proceedings and the fact that the appeal was dismissed without examining the assessment issues on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to provide the assessee an effective opportunity to present her explanation and supporting material before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) and the assessment order were set aside. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the evidence furnished by the assessee, including material relating to the source of investment and the addition of ₹38,00,000, and pass a speaking order. The Tribunal expressly stated that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dhanshri Vilas Gaikwad, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2020-21. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine due to a delay of 134 days, stating that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. The original assessment order, passed by the ITO under section 147 read with section 144, determined the assessee's total income at ₹40,13,660, including an addition of ₹38,00,000 under section 69 read with section 115BBE. The assessee, a housewife, claimed to be unaware of electronic notices and proceedings, leading to the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of being a housewife, unfamiliar with e-filing and electronic notices, and consequently unable to participate effectively in reassessment proceedings or pursue appellate remedies within the prescribed time. This issue turns on principles of natural justice and the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay. Assessee's Contention: The delay was neither wilful nor deliberate. The assessee, being a housewife and unfamiliar with the e-filing portal and income-tax proceedings, did not have effective knowledge of the notices. The delay should be condoned, and the matter restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC ‘ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri Saket Sharma (Virtual
For Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, SR DR
Hearing: 28/09/2026Pronounced: 28/09/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2020–21. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that it

2 ITA No.7902/Mum/2026 Dhanshri Vilas Gaikwad had been filed with a delay of 134 days and that sufficient cause for condoning the delay had not been shown. The grounds challenging the assessment were, therefore, not examined on their merits. The Assessing Officer had completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144, determining the assessee’s total income at ₹40,13,660, which included an addition of ₹38,00,000 under section 69 read with section 115BBE.

2.

The learned counsel submitted that the assessee is a housewife, was not conversant with income-tax proceedings or the e-filing portal, and was unaware of notices communicated electronically. It was submitted that she was consequently unable to participate effectively in the reassessment proceedings or pursue her appellate remedy within the prescribed time. The delay, it was urged, was neither wilful nor deliberate. The learned counsel requested that the delay be condoned and the matter restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee an effective opportunity to explain the source of the investment and furnish supporting evidence.

3.

We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The assessment order records that notices were issued electronically and that further steps, including service by post and affixture, were taken following non-

3 ITA No.7902/Mum/2026 Dhanshri Vilas Gaikwad compliance. It also refers to a return filed in response to the notice under section 148 and a bank statement furnished by the assessee. The assessee’s explanation before us is that, notwithstanding these steps, she was not conversant with the electronic proceedings and did not have effective knowledge of the notices or their implications. Having regard to the explanation offered for the delay, the assessee’s stated circumstances and the fact that the appeal was dismissed without consideration of the assessment issues, we are satisfied that the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) deserves to be condoned.

4.

We further consider it appropriate, in the interests of justice, to provide the assessee an effective opportunity to place her explanation and supporting material before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the assessment order is also set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer shall consider the evidence furnished by the assessee, including material relating to the source of the investment and the addition of ₹38,00,000, and pass a speaking order. The assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings and furnish the relevant material. We express no opinion on the merits of the addition.

4 ITA No.7902/Mum/2026 Dhanshri Vilas Gaikwad

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 28th September, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (G.M. DOSS) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 28/09/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy//

BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →