SMITA SURESH JANWALKAR,MUMBAI vs ASSESSING OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri Nikunj Parekh, CA

For Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (SR DR)

Hearing: 26.02.2026Pronounced: 04.03.2026

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 368/MUM/2026 (AY:2018-19)

Smita Suresh Janwalkar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Bldg No 168 Panchaganga IT-Office, Vasi Railway Station CHS, Pantnagar, Ghatkopar E, Building, Thane, Mumbai-400075. Navi Mumbai-400703. PAN/GIR No: BBQPJ2341M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Nikunj Parekh, CA Respondent by Shri Aditya Rai (SR DR) Date of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 04.03.2026

O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of

Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in

short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 06.05.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2018-19.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. On facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 ex-parte, without adjudicating the appeal on merits, which is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by not passing a speaking order dealing with each ground of appeal raised by the appellant.

ITA No.368/MUM/2026(AY 2018-19) Smita Suresh Janwalkar

The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no effective and reasonable opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellant. 4. The appellant submits that the non-appearance before the learned CIT(A) was due to reasonable cause, as the appellant is residing at her native place and is not technologically conversant, and therefore the failure to respond to electronic notices was neither wilful nor deliberate. 5. On facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment order passed under section 147 read with section 1448, which is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 8,51,880 made under section 56(2)(x) without appreciating that the entire consideration for the property was paid in the year 2011, and therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(x) were wrongly applied with reference to the year of registration. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without appreciating that the property is situated on leasehold land, forms part of an SRA project, and is surrounded by slum area, which materially affects its fair market value. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order without awaiting the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, despite the matter having been referred for valuation. 9. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider and appreciate that the preliminary valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer dated 01.06.2023 determined the fair market value of the property at 10,12,000, which clearly demonstrates that the addition made under section 56(2)(x) is arbitrary and unsustainable. 10. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider and appreciate the independent registered valuer's report submitted by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. 11. Without prejudice to the above, the addition sustained is excessive, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 12. The appellant therefore prays that the impugned ex-parte order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

There is delay of 196 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The

appellant has filed an affidavit and stated that she was not technologically very

ITA No.368/MUM/2026(AY 2018-19) Smita Suresh Janwalkar

conversant and does not regularly access e-mails or income tax portal. The appeal

before the CIT(A) was also disposed of ex-parte due to similar reasons. After

knowing about the appellate order, she has immediately filed the appeal with

small delay of 196 days. The delay was not deliberate and intentional. It was also

stated that there is a strong case on merit. The Ld. Sr. AR of revenue has not

seriously contested the request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing the

appeal. After considering the submission of the assessee including the affidavit,

we find that the delay was not deliberate but was due to circumstances beyond

control of the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for

hearing.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed her return of income

for the AY 2017-18 on 14.10.2022 in response to notice u/s 148 dated 01.03.2022.

The case was reopened by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) due to

difference between price of the property and value as per stamp duty authority.

After hearing the assessee, the AO added Rs. 8,59,880/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The

CIT(A) condoned the delay of 39 days and confirmed the order of AO mainly due

to none compliance to the notices issued by him. The CIT(A) agreed with the

findings of AO and dismissed the appeal.

ITA No.368/MUM/2026(AY 2018-19) Smita Suresh Janwalkar

Further aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal before the

Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ex-parte

order of CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice because no effective

hearing was allowed by him. The order of the CIT(A) is also not as per the mandate

of section 250(6) of the Act. He submitted that all details are available with the

assessee and therefore, he requested that the assessee may be given one more

opportunity to plead her case on merit before the CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. AR of the

revenue has not opposed such prayer of the appellant to restore the matter to

the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

We have heard both parties and perused the materials on record. The

CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-appearance of the assessee during

the appellate proceedings. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the non-

compliance was not deliberate and the assessee is not going to be benefited by

not appearing before the authorities. He submitted that he is ready with all the

details and one more opportunity may be granted to argue the case on merit. The

Ld. Sr. DR of revenue has not opposed the request of the appellant and agreed

that the matter may be restored to the CIT(A). Considering the facts discussed

above, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A)

and restore the matter to his file for re-adjudication in accordance with law after

granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

ITA No.368/MUM/2026(AY 2018-19) Smita Suresh Janwalkar

The assessee is directed to file reply and details by not seeking adjournment

without valid reasons. Accordingly, the grounds are allowed for statistical

purpose.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order is pronounced on 04.03.2026.

Sd/- sd/-

(RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Poonam Mirashi (Stenographer) MUMBAI Date: 04.03.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI

SMITA SURESH JANWALKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI