Radha Reddy vs CIT Ward 68-1

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Addl. JCIT(A)-13 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Mumbai’s order dated 31.12.2025 passed in DIN & case no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084254511(1), involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It transpires at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) has refused to condone the assessee’s alleged delay of 1523 days in institution of her lower appeal instituted on 20.05.2025 against the assessment order dated 23.12.2020 thereby holding that she failed to place on record the cogent justifiable reasons on accord of circumstances beyond control. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned CIT(A) has not even considered the Covid-19 Pandemic Outbreak period which is from March 2020 to March, 2022 as well which has already been directed to be excluded for all intents and purposes, as per hon’ble apex court landmark decision in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee’s categoric stand of having received the impugned assessment order belatedly has also not been rebutted in the lower appellate discussion. I thus see no reason to uphold the learned CIT(A) lower appellate discussion refusing to condone the impugned delay. The same accordingly stands condoned in the larger interest of justice and in the light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The assessee’s first and foremost argument to this effect succeeds therefore.

Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties wherein both the learned lower authorities have assessed the assessee for having derived salary income of Rs. 43,19,166/- going by the alleged figures disclosed in her statement. Faced with this situation, the assessee; who is present herself in the court room, has invited the Tribunal’s attention to part “B” in her Form 16A issued by M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (PSU) stating her actual salary as Rs. 33,06,665/- in the relevant previous year. This clinching figure has gone unrebutted at the revenue’s behest before the Tribunal. I therefore see merit in the assessee’s instant sole grievance on merits and direct the assessing authority to finalize the assessee’s consequential computation after adopting her salary figures of Rs. 33.06 lakhs in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.