VIVEK TRIVEDI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 42(3)(1), MUMBAI

Page 2 A.Y. 2019-20 Shri Vivek Trivedi, Mumbai The grounds of appeal are as under:

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under Section 148 is required to be declared as invalid and bad in law in as much as the specified authority had granted the approval u/s. 151 without application of mind and in an improper manner.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the amount of income under the head salary as assessed by the Assessing Officer at 61,12,458 is required to be reduced to 28,93,500 which was the correct amount of the salary as assessable in the hands of the appellant.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 13,38,000 as made by the Assessing Officer under the head income from house property is required to be deleted as no such income had earned by the appellant at all and the relevant transaction upon which reliance was placed by the Assessing Officer was pertaining to the rent paid by the appellant.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of 173 as made by the Assessing Officer by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s, 69C is required to be assessed as interest income under the head income from other sources.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs.9,864 as made by the Assessing Officer by treating it as unexplained money u/s. 69A is required to be deleted fully. Page 3 A.Y. 2019-20 Shri Vivek Trivedi, Mumbai

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the deductions aggregating to Rs. 1,78,873 should have been granted to the appellant under Chapter VI-A.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 6,18,156 should have been granted to the appellant against his tax liability as computed on the income assessed/assessable.

Facts in brief are that the Revenue had information that the assessee did not file the return for the year despite having financial transactions worth Rs 61,41,515/- which pertained to salary income and interest income. Since no compliance was made, assessment was made ex parte u/s 144 of the Act at Rs 61,41,515/-.

In the subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A) noticed that the appeal in this case had been filed on 03.07.2024. Accordingly, it was delayed by 91 days. He observed that the section 249 laid down the law on condonation of delay under the Act. The assessee had not been able to demonstrate that sufficient cause existed for non-filing the appeal within due time and he neglected/omitted to assert his rights of appeal in a timely manner. Hence, the request for condonation of delay was rejected. Thus, the appeal was not maintainable on this issue alone which was accordingly dismissed.

Before us, the ld.AR has made a written submission stating the reasons for the above delay and it is requested that the delay may kindly Page 4 A.Y. 2019-20 Shri Vivek Trivedi, Mumbai be condoned as there was sufficient reasons for the same which was not properly appreciated by the ld.CIT(A).It is contended that delay was of 153 days. The assessee was employed with shipping company who was during the relevant period facing certain personal and professional reasons issues leading mental stress. It is submitted that his mother was unwell who had to be personally looked after. In March 2024,he was asked by the employer to leave the service suddenly and having huge family liabilities, it caused immense mental stressed. He was also without any job for some time. Moreover, he was of the bonafide belief that once TDS was deducted from his salary income, no further action was required from his side. The delay was not intentional.

On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional. The ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the explanation of the assessee in correct perspective. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon'ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late........Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated....Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.... A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay. 7.In the light of above observations and in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order and restore the entire matter back to the ld.CIT(A) for passing the appellate order de novo. In case of any failure on the part of the assessee, he would be at liberty to pass order after considering the materials on record. The assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings before the ld.CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/01/2026. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (न्यायिक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai दिनांक / Date 05.01.2026 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno PRABHASH SHANKAR (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Page 6 A.Y. 2019-20 Shri Vivek Trivedi, Mumbai आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापित प्रति //// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.