RENU ARUN TALWAR,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 204/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 October 2026AY 2012-1320 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided the appeal on the issue of condonation of delay. The assessee sought condonation of a delay of 131 days in filing the appeal, citing her advanced age (around 80 years) and her husband's age (around 85 years), along with limitations in accessing emails and communicating with her AR. The Tribunal, at the outset, addressed the delay. The judgment indicates that the appeal was filed with a delay of 131 days, and the assessee had filed an application for condonation of this delay. The Tribunal's decision on this specific point of delay is not fully detailed in the provided text, but it is the primary procedural issue addressed. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the grounds related to the additions and the calculation of capital gains. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the merits of the additions or the calculation of capital gains, but it does mention that the assessee had grounds challenging these. The operative direction would depend on the outcome of the condonation of delay application and subsequent decision on the merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Renu Arun Talwar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, challenging an order dated June 24, 2025, passed by the NFAC-Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal arises from reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information regarding the sale of a plot of land in Pune. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment due to discrepancies in the valuation of the plot and structure, where the valuer initially adopted a rate of Rs. 108 per sq. ft. for land and Rs. 110 per sq. ft. for construction. The valuer later withdrew this report. The AO, using a rate of Rs. 40 per sq. ft. based on another valuation report, determined a difference of Rs. 48,24,225/-. Additionally, the AO restricted the deduction under Section 54 for the purchase of two adjacent residential flats to the cost of one flat, amounting to Rs. 1,76,21,954/-, instead of the claimed Rs. 3,35,36,982/-, leading to a total addition of Rs. 4,26,26,786/-. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's additions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 140 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the assessee's age (approximately 80 years) and limitations in accessing emails and communicating with her Authorized Representative (AR)? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the additions amounting to Rs. 1,70,25,018/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted? (Question of law and fact, concerning the computation of capital gains and eligibility for deduction under Section 54) 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the ground raised by the assessee regarding the Assessing Officer's incorrect calculation of Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at Rs. 6,82,68,554/- as against Rs. 4,26,46,786/- computed by the assessee, especially when applications for rectification under Section 154 were made? Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the advanced age of the assessee and her husband, leading to difficulties in communication and accessing the ITBA portal. - The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. - The AO erred in calculating the LTCG, and the matter is subject to rectification proceedings under Section 154. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue did not record any specific contentions regarding the issues raised by the assessee in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 131(1A),Section 154,Section 54,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Singh SR. DR
Pronounced: 16/10/2026

PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 24th June, 2025 passed by NFAC-Delhi for A.Y. 2012-13 on following grounds of appeal:

1) Condonation of delay in Filing the Appeal: Your Appellants were in receipt of the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24th June, 2025 on the ITBA portal and on Your Appellants email ID. The age of Your Appellants about 80 years, who

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →