IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

&

SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Assessment Year: 2016-17 Santosh Kumar Ramlaxman Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward –

Yadav 42(3)(3), Mumbai

203, Building No. 2 Ziprya Arcade Khumbarkhanpada Dobmivilli West Maharashtra - 421202 [PAN: ADRPY4190R]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Rajesh S. Athvale, C.A.

Revenue by Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR Date of Hearing 15.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM:

Present penalty appeal filed by assessee arises out of order dated 20/06/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2016-17, on the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Learned NFAC erred in not condoning delay in filing appeal before

CIT(A) of 182 days even though Assessee had explained sufficient cause

for delay and thus delay in filing appeal before the NFAC may be

condoned.

2. The Learned NFAC failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer who issued reopening notice and Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order did not have jurisdiction over the Assessee.

3. The Learned NFAC erred in conforming the order of ld AO without appreciating that reopening in the facts and circumstances of the case is bad in law.

4. The Learned NFAC failed to appreciate that reopening is bad in law as same is in violation of Section 151A as Notice u/s 148 is not issued by the faceless assessing Officer.

5. The Learned NFAC erred in confirming order of AO making the addition of unexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 amounting to Rs. 2,64,30,442/- without appreciating that the investment in immovable property was only Rs 1,35,00,000/- and TDS was deducted on 1,29,30,442/- and further the property was purchased by securing loan from State Bank of India and hence the addition of Rs. 2,64,30,442/- may be deleted.

6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete any of the grounds of appeal.”

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there was delay of 182 days in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). It is submitted that, the assessee is a non-resident and did not have any income that accrued in India. Assessee was, therefore, not aware about any proceedings that was initiated against him.

2.1. It is submitted that, assessee purchased a property during the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration against which, TDS was deducted. Based on these, the assessment for the year under consideration was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. He submitted that, assessee was absolutely not aware regarding the assessment proceedings and the assessment order passed by Ld.AO was ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act.

2.2. It is submitted that, subsequently when assessee came to know about assessment order having passed, he immediately filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 182 days which was unintentional.

2.1. The Ld.CIT(A) without considering the circumstances in which the appeal was belatedly filed, dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3. The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee also challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under the new provisions of Section 148 which was also not considered by Ld.CIT(A). Assessee has filed following affidavit to demonstrate that delay was unintentional and under bonafide circumstances:-

***This space is left blank intentionally, P.T.O***

3.1. Ld.DR relied on the order passed by the authority below.

We have perused the submission advance by both sides in light of the records placed before us.

4. Admittedly, the Ld.DR could not controvert the submissions filed by assessee and the arguments advanced by Ld.AR to substantiate the delay caused in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). It is noted that assessee, under genuine circumstances, could not respond to the notices issued by revenue during the assessment proceedings.

4.1. It is noted that there is