ANITA BHANUDAS BHOIR,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 2(1) KALYAN, MUMBAI

ITA 6882/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anita Bhanudas Bhoir, the appellant, who contested the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the non-condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the assessment order for the year 2018-19. The appellant had filed her income tax return, which was selected for scrutiny. Due to non-response to notices, a best judgment assessment was made, leading to an appeal. The appeal was initially delayed due to technical issues related to the possession of two PANs, which were later resolved by cancelling one PAN and linking the other with Aadhaar. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay satisfactory and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the substantive issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31955 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPUL JAIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 6882/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Anita Bhanudas Bhoir, 1 Kishna Kunj Niwas, Chinar CHS, Hendrepada Badlapur (W), Thane-421503. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre,/ITO Ward 2(1) Kalyan. PAN NO. AHLPB 8013 E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Vipul Jain Revenue by : Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 05/03/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [here-in-after referred to as Ld. CIT (Appeals)] erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the additions made by Ld. AO in the as order. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the additions made by Ld. AO u/s 56(2)(x) 2. The material facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant filed a return of income on 11.02.2019, declaring a total inc ₹5,24,860/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny, and in pursuance thereof, statutory notices under the Income 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and duly served upon the assessee. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of notices. Consequently, the Assessing Officer, in exercise of powers under Section 144 of the Act, proceeded to pass an assessment order on 29.01.2021, determining the tax liability on the basis of best judgment assessment. Aggrieved by th order, the assessee filed the prescribed appeal fee for filing appeal, within the period stipulated under the Act. However, the memorandum of appeal was filed only on 20.04.2023, resulting in a delay of 314 days, even after excluding the grace Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters affected by the COVID pandemic. In view of the substantial delay and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to admit the appeal. The assessee, in proceedings before the L to justify the delay on the ground that she was in possession of two ITA No. 6882/MUM/2024 referred to as Ld. CIT (Appeals)] erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the additions made by Ld. AO in the as 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the additions made by Ld. AO u/s 56(2)(x) is bad The material facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant filed a return of income on 11.02.2019, declaring a total inc . The said return was selected for scrutiny, and in pursuance thereof, statutory notices under the Income 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and duly served upon the assessee. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of notices. Consequently, the Assessing Officer, in exercise of powers under Section 144 of the Act, proceeded to pass an assessment order on 29.01.2021, determining the tax liability on the basis of best judgment assessment. Aggrieved by th order, the assessee filed the prescribed appeal fee for filing appeal, within the period stipulated under the Act. However, the memorandum of appeal was filed only on 20.04.2023, resulting in a delay of 314 days, even after excluding the grace period extended by Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters affected by the COVID pandemic. In view of the substantial delay and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to admit the appeal. The assessee, in proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), sought to justify the delay on the ground that she was in possession of two Anita Bhanudas Bhoir 2 ITA No. 6882/MUM/2024 referred to as Ld. CIT (Appeals)] erred in not condoning the 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the additions made by Ld. AO in the assessment 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, bad in law. The material facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant filed a return of income on 11.02.2019, declaring a total income at . The said return was selected for scrutiny, and in pursuance thereof, statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and duly served upon the assessee. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of the said notices. Consequently, the Assessing Officer, in exercise of powers under Section 144 of the Act, proceeded to pass an ex-parte assessment order on 29.01.2021, determining the tax liability on the basis of best judgment assessment. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed the prescribed appeal fee for filing appeal, within the period stipulated under the Act. However, the memorandum of appeal was filed only on 20.04.2023, resulting in a period extended by Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In view of the substantial delay and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to admit the d. CIT(A), sought to justify the delay on the ground that she was in possession of two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), which led to certain technical difficulties in filing the appeal. It was further submitted that the assessee had been actively correspo Authorities for the cancellation of one PAN and subsequently with the Aadhaar Authorities for linking the remaining PAN with her Aadhaar. It was contended that those procedural impediments resulted in the delay in filing the appea not finding merit in the explanation so tendered, rejected the appeal as un-admitted. Aggrieved by the said order, the approached the Tribunal, assailing the rejection of the appeal and raising the grounds as set forth hereinabove. 2.1 Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted an affidavit along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Referring to Form No. 35, learned counsel contended that the appeal fee had been duly paid within the prescribed limitation period, i.e., on 28.05.2021. However, due to the existence of two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), the appeal could not be uploaded on the Income The assessee had been in continuous correspondence with the relevant Income-tax Authorities, pursuant to which the old PAN (‘BGCPB6822Q’) was cancelled, and the valid PAN (‘AHLPB8013E’) was subsequently linked with the Aadhaar. It was only after the completion of this process that the assessee was able to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Learned counsel for the assessee ITA No. 6882/MUM/2024 Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), which led to certain technical difficulties in filing the appeal. It was further submitted that the assessee had been actively corresponding with the Income Authorities for the cancellation of one PAN and subsequently with the Aadhaar Authorities for linking the remaining PAN with her Aadhaar. It was contended that those procedural impediments resulted in the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Ld. CIT(A), not finding merit in the explanation so tendered, rejected the appeal Aggrieved by the said order, the approached the Tribunal, assailing the rejection of the appeal and raising the grounds as set forth hereinabove. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted an affidavit along with an application seeking condonation of delay in g the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Referring to Form No. 35, learned counsel contended that the appeal fee had been duly paid within the prescribed limitation period, i.e., on 28.05.2021. However, due to the existence of two Permanent Account Numbers s), the appeal could not be uploaded on the Income The assessee had been in continuous correspondence with the tax Authorities, pursuant to which the old PAN (‘BGCPB6822Q’) was cancelled, and the valid PAN (‘AHLPB8013E’) sequently linked with the Aadhaar. It was only after the completion of this process that the assessee was able to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Learned counsel for the assessee Anita Bhanudas Bhoir 3 ITA No. 6882/MUM/2024 Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), which led to certain technical difficulties in filing the appeal. It was further submitted that the nding with the Income-tax Authorities for the cancellation of one PAN and subsequently with the Aadhaar Authorities for linking the remaining PAN with her Aadhaar. It was contended that those procedural impediments l. However, the Ld. CIT(A), not finding merit in the explanation so tendered, rejected the appeal Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has approached the Tribunal, assailing the rejection of the appeal and Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted an affidavit along with an application seeking condonation of delay in g the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Referring to Form No. 35, learned counsel contended that the appeal fee had been duly paid within the prescribed limitation period, i.e., on 28.05.2021. However, due to the existence of two Permanent Account Numbers s), the appeal could not be uploaded on the Income-tax portal. The assessee had been in continuous correspondence with the tax Authorities, pursuant to which the old PAN (‘BGCPB6822Q’) was cancelled, and the valid PAN (‘AHLPB8013E’) sequently linked with the Aadhaar. It was only after the completion of this process that the assessee was able to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid circumstances constitute a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Conversely, the learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) opposed the request for condonation, contending that the delay was attributable to the assessee’s own fault in possessing two PANs. The Ld. DR further pointed out that, in the affidavit, the assessee had incorrectly attributed the issuance of the second PAN to the Department 3. After considering the submissions of the parties and perusing the record, we note that the appeal fee was paid within the prescribed limitation period, thereby demonstrating the appellant’s intention to comply with the applicable time limits. The delay in filing the appeal is attributable to a technical issue arising from the existence of two PANs, which prevented the electronic upload the appeal on the Income explained the steps taken to cancel one PAN and subsequently link the remaining PAN with Aadhaar. In our considered opinion, these circumstances provide a bona fide justification for the the appeal. Consequently, we condone the delay, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), and remit the matter to him for adjudication on its merits. assessee is allowed. Since we have already re to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), we are not required to adjudicate on ground No. 2 and 2.1 challenging the addition on merit. ITA No. 6882/MUM/2024 submitted that the aforesaid circumstances constitute a sufficient se for the delay in filing the appeal. Conversely, the learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) opposed the request for condonation, contending that the delay was attributable to the assessee’s own fault in possessing two PANs. The Ld. DR further ed out that, in the affidavit, the assessee had incorrectly attributed the issuance of the second PAN to the Department After considering the submissions of the parties and perusing the record, we note that the appeal fee was paid within the limitation period, thereby demonstrating the appellant’s intention to comply with the applicable time limits. The delay in filing the appeal is attributable to a technical issue arising from the existence of two PANs, which prevented the electronic upload the appeal on the Income-tax Portal. The appellant has further explained the steps taken to cancel one PAN and subsequently link the remaining PAN with Aadhaar. In our considered opinion, these circumstances provide a bona fide justification for the the appeal. Consequently, we condone the delay, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), and remit the matter to him for adjudication on its merits. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Since we have already restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), we are not required to adjudicate on ground No. 2 and 2.1 challenging the addition on merit. Anita Bhanudas Bhoir 4 ITA No. 6882/MUM/2024 submitted that the aforesaid circumstances constitute a sufficient se for the delay in filing the appeal. Conversely, the learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) opposed the request for condonation, contending that the delay was attributable to the assessee’s own fault in possessing two PANs. The Ld. DR further ed out that, in the affidavit, the assessee had incorrectly attributed the issuance of the second PAN to the Department. After considering the submissions of the parties and perusing the record, we note that the appeal fee was paid within the limitation period, thereby demonstrating the appellant’s intention to comply with the applicable time limits. The delay in filing the appeal is attributable to a technical issue arising from the existence of two PANs, which prevented the electronic uploading of tax Portal. The appellant has further explained the steps taken to cancel one PAN and subsequently link the remaining PAN with Aadhaar. In our considered opinion, these circumstances provide a bona fide justification for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, we condone the delay, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), and remit the matter to him for The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the stored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), we are not required to adjudicate on ground No. 2 and 2.1 challenging the addition on merit. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the o Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 05/03/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. 6882/MUM/2024 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/- Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Anita Bhanudas Bhoir 5 ITA No. 6882/MUM/2024 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "