HARISHCHANDRA LAXMAN DONGRE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER MUM-W-(221)(1), MUMBAI

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment as well as the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) were both ex parte, and the assessee was unable to furnish the requisite documents before either authority. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 66, which has been taken on record.

The Ld. AR further contended that the assessee is a salaried employee working with M/s. Focus Fitness Private Limited, earning a salary of Rs.2,63,730/-, on which tax of Rs.912/- was deducted at source. The assessee had not filed his return of income. Pursuant to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessment was completed. While completing the assessment, the Ld. AO considered the assessee’s salary income at Rs.5,46,630/-, which is nearly double the actual salary earned, without bringing any corroborative evidence on record to support such estimation.

It was also submitted that the assessee had purchased a property located at MIDC, Khairane, Navi Mumbai, for a consideration of Rs.36,33,000/- on 27/04/2017, against a stamp duty valuation of Rs.35,38,000/-. Considering the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.21,22,703/-, the resultant capital gain was Rs.15,10,297/-, which was claimed as exempt, as the assessee had invested in a new residential flat. However, the assessee was unable to submit the relevant documentary evidence before the authorities below.

Before us, the assessee has filed additional evidence which, in our view, is material and relevant to the adjudication of the issues involved in the present

In our considered opinion, while there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal ought not to have been dismissed without considering the reasons for the delay and without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was denied adequate opportunity both during the assessment as well as in the appellate proceedings. The Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection to the submissions made by the Ld. AR. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the assessee’s request for condonation of delay of 186 days in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to furnish all relevant documents, including those submitted before us as additional evidence, before the Ld. CIT(A) for proper appreciation of facts.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as to not prejudice the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing a fresh appellate order. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and fully co-operative in the remand proceedings to enable early disposal of the appeal.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No. 3582/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th day of August 2025. (PRABHASH SHANKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 06/08/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to:

अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file.