SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top