DEEPAK JAYANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6766/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's reasons for the delay appeared genuine, and the Ld. Commissioner had adopted a hyper-technical approach. The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner had dismissed the appeal on merit despite the delay and had not properly considered the assessee's submissions.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income related to property valuation and unexplained investment. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner with a delay of approximately two months, citing the hospitalization of their mother for cancer treatment.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal on merit without properly considering the assessee's submissions and the reasons for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 56(2),Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH“D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYSHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Punamiya (Virtually
For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr
Hearing: 02.03.2026Pronounced: 02.03.2026

O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 16.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short Ld. Commissioner] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [in short ‘the Act’] for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order dated 09.05.2023 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 has made the additions of Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.1,10,00,000/- on account of variation in the market value and actual consideration of the property being income from other sources u/s 50C and 56(2) of the Act, and unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, respectively.

3.

The Assessee being aggrieved against the aforesaid additions/disallowances, filed 1st appeal before the Ld. Commissioner however, with a delay of around two (2) months, which was not found satisfactory by the Ld. Commissioner and thus the Ld. Commissioner not only rejected the request of the Assessee for condonation of delay but also the appeal filed by the Assessee on merit.

4.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, with regard to the delay. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner has contended that because of the constrained hospitalization of Assessee’s mother for treatments comprising of Chemotherapy due to cancer, as the Assessee’s attention was required towards her mother treatment, which resulted into delay of approximately two months in filing of First Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. The reasons stated by the Assessee in our considered view, appears to be genuine but still the Ld. Commissioner adopted the hyper technical approach. Even otherwise, the Ld. Commissioner, while rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay, proceeded with the case of the Assessee on merit, and it is a fact that, despite filing submissions by the Assessee twice, the Ld. Commissioner, failed to consider the same and more or less by holding that the Assessee has failed to produce documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, on merit as well. Thus, the Ld. Commissioner, eventually condoned the delay.

5.

In our considered view the matter needs to be examined afresh on merit, and thus considering the peculiar facts and circumstances for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, on merit.

6.

Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, on merits of the case.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →