BHAVANA MANOJ SINGH ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4581/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Bhavana Manoj Singh, the appellant, who challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary contention was the dismissal of her appeal in limine due to a delay in filing, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The appellant argued that the delay was due to her being a housewife, not tech-savvy, and the email ID on record belonged to her deceased Chartered Accountant. Additionally, she contested the addition of Rs. 71,00,000 as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to property purchase. The Tribunal, referencing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji, decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774134 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others: 1987 SCR (2) 387
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEYAQAT ALI AAFAQUI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARIDAS BHATT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4581/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) Bhavana Manoj Singh, Flat no. 404, Kamal Apartment, Lokhandwala Complex, Opp. RNA Market, Azad Nagar, Mumbai-400053. PAN : BCHPS6429M ............... Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400012. ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 09/09/2025 Date of Order - 11/09/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 18/06/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4581/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 2 “GROUND I A. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, ignoring the bona fide for delay in filing and merits of the case is bad at law. B. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant i. was a housewife and not tech-savvy, and that the email ID on record belonged to her previous Chartered Accountant who passed away, and no physical notice was served. ii. Thus, the assessee was not granted proper opportunity and not adjudicated on merits is bad at law and against the principle of natural justice. C. The appellant therefore prays that order passed without giving sufficient opportunity to substantiate the claims is bad at law and the said order be annulled. GROUND II A. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Income Tax Assessment Unit (\"AO\") erred adding Rs.71,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act, as unexplained investments towards the payment made for purchase of property. B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO failed to appreciate that: i. The property is purchased by the assessee and her husband wherein assessee being the first owner of the said property. ii. The payments towards the purchase of the property are made by assessee and her husband from known sources through the banking channel. iii. The appellant's explanations submitted before the CITA were not considered. C. The appellant, therefore, prays that addition of Rs. 71,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money may please be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, and / or amend the above grounds of appeal.” 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order dismissing the appeal filed by Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4581/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 3 the assessee on the ground of delay without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits against the addition made vide order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 with section 144B of the Act. We find that before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made the following submission for seeking condonation of the delay of 143 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A):- “With regards to your observation that order is passed on 29.02.2024 while, the date of receipt of order is mentioned as 26.07.2024 however the filed the appeal on 20.08.2024. Considering the date of order as services of order there is has delay of 144 days in filing the appeal. With regards to the same we submit that the appellant has filed the appeal along with a request for condonation. Prayer for condonation of delay in filing of appeal is re-stated as follow: \"The Income-tax Officer passed the Assessment Order Uls 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income tax Act, on 29/02/2024. The assessee is housewife and not a tech savvy person. Thus, the CA has mentioned his own email ID on the Income tax portal. The earlier CA has since passed away and the assessee had appointed a new CA. Since there was no sizable income and no pending proceedings the address was not updated. Further, the residential address available on the portal was pertaining to the property owned by her mother the same was sold long back. Thus the assessee was unaware of the proceedings going-on and that the order is already passed. It is when the new CA opened the income tax portal for filing of ITR, he learnt that there is some outstanding demand on account an order being passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the date when the notice was downloaded is mentioned as the service of the order. The assessee therefore submits that it had reasonable cause for the delay in the filing of the appeal and accordingly requests you to kindly condone the delay and dispose the appeal on merits and oblige.\" With regards to the email id reported on ITD portal, screenshot of asesseee profile is attached, it shows that the mail id belonged to the CA. Further with regards to physical address to which the notices were served i.e. A-WING, 105, ACCORD BLDG 2ND CROSS LANE, LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI 400053 the said property was sold in 2010. Copy of the sale agreement is attached herewith. With regards to the date of service of order, the newly appointed CA learnt that there is some outstanding demand and then check for the orders passed, that is when they learnt about the order. Since the order was checked online there is no proof for date of receipt of order. Thus, we once again request you to requests you to kindly condone the delay and dispose the appeal on merits and oblige.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4581/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 4 4. As is evident from the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) disagreed with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and held that there is no good and justifiable reason for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. During the hearing, no material was brought on record to controvert the submissions made on behalf of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) seeking condonation of the delay. 5. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others: 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well established that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has proved sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period before the learned CIT(A). It is further pertinent to note that the assessee does not stand to benefit by not challenging the addition made vide order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 with section 144B of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the said delay should be condoned. Hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for consideration on merits, as per law, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. We order Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4581/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 5 accordingly. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/09/2025 Sd/- NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 11/09/2025 Prabhat Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "