IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE (RETD) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 98/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Anju Sanjay Rohira Vs DCIT, Circle – 3

2203, Verona CHSL, Cliff Thane.

Avenue Road, Powai IIT SO, Mumbai – 400076.

(PAN: ABCPR2947J)

Appellant Respondent Present for:

Appellant by : Shri Aditya Ramachandran, CA Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of NFAC, Delhi / CIT(A), vide order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/10828791170(1), dated 21.11.2025, passed against the intimation issued by Centralised Processing Centre of the Income-tax Department, Bengaluru, (CPC) u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 11.07.2019, for Assessment Year 2018-19.

2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

1. The learned CPC has erred in rejecting the rectification application filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the fact that the deduction under Section 54, amounting to Rs.90,00,000/-, was duly disclosed in Schedule CG: Capital Gains of the return. The adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a), without granting the eligible deduction, has resulted in an incorrect computation of total income and an undue tax liability on the appellant.

2. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute and or modify, withdraw in any manner what so ever all or any of foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of appeal. 164

3. Through Ground No.1, assessee is contesting that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the first appeal on account of delay of 2007 days in filing the appeal before him which does not meet the requirements of provisions contained in Sec. 249 of the Act, more particularly u/s 249(3) of the Act which requires “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay.

4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed her return of income on 31.08.2018, reporting total income at Rs. 6,54,127/-. She claimed deduction u/s 54 in return filed by her amounting to Rs. 90 lakhs. Return of income was processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act for which intimation was issued, denying the deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act. Assessee moved an application u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of mistake apparent from the records, filed on 28.06.2019 which was rejected vide order dated 11.07.2019.

4.1 According to the assessee, while reporting income under the head capital gains, she had duly offered to tax the sales consideration after claiming deduction u/s 54. According to her, proper discloser and compliance is made for deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act. However, while processing the return, CPC did not take into consideration, the said deduction for which it issued a communication informing the proposed adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act, reflecting variance between schedule CG column capital gains “income chargeable to tax had special rate”. Subsequently, deduction was denied in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 02.05.2019. Assessee filed the first appeal on 06.02.2025. In Srl No. 14 in Form 35, assessee mentioned about the delay in filing the said appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted her explanation in Srl No. 15 for condonation of delay. The submissions so mentioned in Srl No. 15 of Form 35 mentions that the delay occurred due to late understanding of situation for the high demand on the income-tax portal as she is not a tax expert. She referred to several judicial precedents to make her case for the explanation of the phrase “sufficient cause”.

4.2 Ld. CIT(A) gave several opportunities to the assessee fixing dates for hearing so as to comply with the requirements of the sec. 249(3) of the Act. However, despite giving multiple opportunities to furnish reasons a