IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5909/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2021-22)

DCIT – 1(2)1, Mumbai Vs. Patil Construction and

535, 5th Floor, Aayakar Infrastructure Limited Bhavan, M.K. Road, Flat No. 2, Swadhin Mumbai - 400020 Sadan, C – Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400021 PAN GIR No. AAFCP4151P /

Applicant Respondent ( ) ( )

Assessee by Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, CA (Virtually appeared)

Revenue by Shri Virabhadra, (SR. DR.)

Date of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2026 आदेश ORDER /

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19. The following grounds are reproduced below:

“(i) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.80,91,958/-, without appreciating the factual aspect and by ignoring the manifest evidence relied upon by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings?"

(ii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the addition, without appreciation the factual aspect and by ignoring the manifest evidence relied upon by the Assessing Officer and overlooking the ratio laid down in the case of Kaveri Rice Mills vs CIT (157 Taxman 376) and Pawanraj B. Bokadia in Tax Appeal No. 2345 of

2009, dated September 239, 2011?"

(iⅲ) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,91,958/ made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the additional evidence without giving an opportunity to the AO to examine the same?"

(iv) The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored.

(v) The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may necessary.

”

2. At the very outset we noticed that there is delay of approximately 4 days in filing the appeal before us. And the Revenue has filed an application on record for seeking condonation of delay and the same is reproduced herein below:

URGENT/ITAT MATTER Sir, Sub: Submission of application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal in the case of M/s Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd. For AY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2021-22-reg.

Ref: Appeal Nos. ITA/5907, 5908, 5909/MUM/2024 filed by Department Please refer to the above-mentioned subject.

2 Members of ITAT C Bench, Mumbai. With reference to the above. I am directed to state The above appeals were listed for hearing on 01.01.2025 before the Hon'ble that, it is seen from Form No. 36 and scrutiny report that there is a delay of 32 days in filing of 3 appeals by department for AV 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2021-22 as the due date for filing of appeal was 12.10.2024 however the appeals have been filed on 14.11.2024

3 During the course of hearing, the Hon'ble Members wanted to know the reasons for delay in filing of 3 above said appeals and directed to submit applications for condonation of delay in all the three appeals for AY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2021-22

4 It is accordingly requested that three separate petitions for condonation of delay for AY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2021-22 along with reason for delay may be filed at the 4. earliest

5 The matter is now listed for hearing on 05.02.2025, it is therefore requested that the application for condonation of delay for all the above 3 assessment years may be filed lates by

15.01.2025.

Regards ITO to CIT Bench, Mumbai

2.1 Considering the entire factual position as explained in the application and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 AIR 1353