2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 16316
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
REKHA DILIP AGARWAL MUMBAI – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(3)(4) MUMBAI – Respondent
ITA 3508/MUM/2026[2014-15]
##PAGE1##
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
BENCHES, MUMBAI
BENCH: K (SMC)
BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA 3508/MUM/2026
िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/Assessment Year:2014-15)
REKHA DILIP AGARWAL INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD
15, Anukool Chs Ltd, Sq Leader 23(3)(4)
Harminder Singh Road, Seven
Piramal Chambers Lalbaug
Bunglow, Versova, Andheri West, Vs.
Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400061
400012
अपीलाथ(cid:334) Appellant (cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) Respondent
Permanent Account Number of Assessee: ACYPA1509Q
अपीलाथ(cid:334) (cid:554)ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Shishir adv.
(cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) (cid:554)ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Ajay Uke Sr. A.R.
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 02-Jul-2026
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of pronouncement: 03-Jul-2026
आदेश / ORDER
Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), ADDL/JCIT (A) – 10 Delhi [for brevity the
“Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for
brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2014-15, date of order 31.01.2026. The
impugned order emanated from the order of Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-
24(3)(4), Mumbai order passed under section 143(3) of the Act date of order
29.12.2016.
1
##PAGE2##ITA 3508/MUM/2026
REKHA DILIP AGARWAL
2. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:
1. The impugned order passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A), NFAC is ex facie illegal,
and arbitrary, having been passed without proper application of mind and in
gross violation of settled legal principles.
2. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on
the ground of delay, without appreciating that the delay was supported by
sufficient and bona fide cause.
3. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) failed to appreciate that refusal to condone delay
defeats substantive justice, and is contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in multiple decisions mandating a liberal approach.
Reliance is placed on settled legal position laid down by the Honble Supreme
Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, N.
Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy and many more.
4. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has acted mechanically and abdicated his quasi-judicial
duty by refusing adjudicate the appeal on merits, thereby rendering the
appellate remedy illusory.
5. The impugned order is liable to be quashed as the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has
failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him, resulting in denial of justice.
6. Without prejudice, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in sustaining / not
adjudicating the addition of 31,74,000 under Section 56(2)(vii), which is
wholly unsustainable in law and on facts.
7. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the delay caused was
due to personal difficulty / domestic issues of the appellant with her then
husband. Such issues are very private and traumatic in nature and need not
be discussed in detail as expected by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in its order dated
31st January 2026.
8. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there was no mala
fide intention to disclose the details of the case and proceedings by the
appellant but rather an attempt to maintain her privacy.
9. The appellant has in 2016 faced domestic violence at the hands of her
husband which resulted in many fights between him and her. The appellant
had filed noncognizable complaint on 24/07/2017 in Versova police station
then on 4-5-2018 second non-cognizable complaint came to be filed and
finally on 9/5/2018 third Non cognizable complaint came to filed.
2
##PAGE3##ITA 3508/MUM/2026
REKHA DILIP AGARWAL
10. The appellant thereafter on 07/02/2019 filed a criminal complaint before the
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri Mumbai bearing case no.
223/DV/2018. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has divorced her
husband.
11. The appellant thereafter on 07/02/2019 filed a criminal complaint before the
Ld. Metropolitan Magistr