HARLEEN KAUR GHURA ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7664/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Harleen Kaur Ghura, who appealed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal challenged the validity of the reassessment order and notice issued under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming improper jurisdiction and lack of correct authority approval. Additionally, the appellant contested the dismissal of her appeal by the CIT(A) without merit consideration and the addition of a substantial amount to her income under section 69 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not adequately represented during the CIT(A) proceedings due to personal circumstances and thus restored the matter for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837758 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BRAJENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA RAMACHANDRAN; WAY OF GIFT; JUSTIFIABLY; PROPERLY EXPLAINING
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Gift
• Section: 147; 148; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7664/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Harleen Kaur Ghura B 602 Ambe Prerna, Sector 3, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai- 400701, Vs. ITO, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai IT-Office, Vasi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai - 400703 PAN/GIR No. AOVPG9346L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Aditya Rama Chandran Revenue by Shri Brajendra Kumar (SR. DR.) Date of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 24.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19. The following grounds are reproduced below: Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.7664/Mum/2025 Harleen Kaur Ghura “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-27 Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section 151 who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 28(1)(1). Mumbai has erred in passing the order u/s. 148A(d) and also issuing the notice u/s. 148 without appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for the same in view of Section 151A and the notification issued thereunder notifying e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby. rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment proceeding as null and void. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appeal of the appellant before the CIT (A) may please be restored back and the non-compliance of the appellant in respect of the notices issued by the CIT (A) may please be excused as it was for the genuine reasons. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without dealing with the grounds of appeal raised before him on merits. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of an amount of ₹41,33,333 as made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Act is required to be deleted since the impugned investment has been made by the appellant's ex-husband / his mother and not by the appellant.” 2. At the very outset we noticed that there is a delay in filing of present appeal and in this regard ld. AR has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay, which is reproduced herein below: Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.7664/Mum/2025 Harleen Kaur Ghura 1. The order under section 250 of the Act for AY 2018-19 confirming an addition amounting to Rs. 41,33,330 was passed on 24/03/2025. 2. The appeal against the said order was required to be filed within a period of two months from the end of the month in which the aforesaid order is passed. Accordingly, the time limit to file an appeal got expired on 31/05/2025. However, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit for the reasons as stated hereunder 3. The case of the appellant was reopened vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 07/04/2022. The reason for reopening of the case, as stated by the Ld. Assessing Officer was that, the appellant had purchased an immovable property for an amount of ₹ 1,24,00,000 & correspondingly the appellant had not submitted her return of income for the year under consideration. 4. The property which was purchased and for which the information was available with the Assessing Officer was bearing the address 'Flat No. 1201. 12th Floor, A-Wing Building No. S-3, Odyssey CHS Ltd., Bhakti Park, Wadala (E), Mumbai 400037. The aforesaid purchase transaction of impugned property was executed by the appellant's husband, mother-in-law and by the appellant vide an Agreement of Sale dated 15th January, 2018. 5. It may be noted that, the entire payment for purchase of the impugned property was made by the appellant's Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.7664/Mum/2025 Harleen Kaur Ghura husband and mother-in-law. The appellant had not paid even a single penny for purchase of the said immovable property. 7. Subsequently owing to serious marital discord which arose between the appellant and her husband, they got separated on 20/10/2018 and finally it got culminated in a decision to dissolve their marriage by way of divorce by filing a petition before the family court dated 21-06-2023 bearing Petition No. F-4133 of 2022 8. As per the terms of the settlement as agreed between them, the appellant had agreed to gift her right, title and interest in the impugned property to her husband. 9. Accordingly, vide the gift deed dated 29th March, 2022, the appellant had gifted her right, title and interest in the impugned property to her husband. 10. Since then, the husband of the appellant (by way of gift) was vested with all the appellant's right, title and interest in the impugned property. Therefore, her husband (vide letter dated 18/05/2022) expressly undertook to represent and resolve all income-tax related issues pertaining to the impugned property. 11. During the course of assessment proceeding, various notices and show cause notices were issued to the appellant from time to time. The husband of the appellant had duly complied the same on her behalf. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.7664/Mum/2025 Harleen Kaur Ghura 12. Meanwhile, the assessment order under section 147 of the Act was passed on 29/01/2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, the husband of the appellant, on behalf of her, preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT-(Α). 13. Subsequent to the undertaking given by the husband to handle the income-tax proceeding, the appellant stopped bothering about the said appeal and completely relied the proceedings entirely on her behalf and did not personally participate therein. on the bona fide assurance and representation of her husband and allowed him to handle 14. Owing to dissolution of marriage by way of divorce decree dated 21-6-2023, the appellant and her husband ceased all the communication with each other. The appellant, being unaware of the procedural status of the appeal and having no access to the relevant records or electronic communication, remained under the bona fide belief that the appeal was being properly prosecuted by her husband and very soon the same will get resolved. 15. The Ld. CIT-(A) thereafter issued several notices of hearing under section 250 of the Act. all of which were transmitted to the email address operated and controlled solely by the appellant's husband. The mail ids on which such notices were issued were *[e-mail]\" and \"[e-mail]' Kind attention of Your Honour is drawn to the fact that, even though, both the above stated mail id contained the name of the appellant, they were being Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.7664/Mum/2025 Harleen Kaur Ghura operated by her husband only and, as a result of which, she remained unaware of the ongoing proceedings and could not respond to various notices of hearing issued. 16. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), in the absence of any representation or compliance, proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, passing the impugned order dated 24/03/2025. 17. The appellant came to know of the said ex-parte order only upon receipt of a physical notice relating to penalty proceeding dated 15-10-2025 (arising from the above said assessment order) sent to her postal address. This was the first instance wherein the appellant became aware that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) had already been decided. Upon learning that, the CIT(A) Order has been passed against her, she got completely shocked because she was under the bona fide belief that, the appeal was being properly prosecuted by her husband and very soon the same will get resolved. 18. Since thereafter the appellant took diligent steps to obtain a copy of the CIT(A)'s order, sought professional advice, and initiated the process of filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The delay in filing the appeal has thus occurred due to circumstances entirely beyond the control of the appellant and not on account of any willful default, negligence, or inaction. 19. The appellant respectfully submits that the delay occasioned is bona fide and unintentional. The appellant has Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.7664/Mum/2025 Harleen Kaur Ghura acted with due diligence upon becoming aware of the order and has promptly taken all necessary steps to pursue her legal remedies. 20. It is a well-settled principle of law that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] has held that a liberal and justice-oriented approach must be adopted in matters concerning condonation of delay, as refusal to condone may result in meritorious matters being dismissed at the threshold. The appellant respectfully submits that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned, whereas grave injustice would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned and the matter is not heard on merits. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay therefore application seeking condonation may be rejected. 4. We have heard counsel for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, and the judgment cited before us on application seeking condonation of delay. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.7664/Mum/2025 Harleen Kaur Ghura Ors 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities of non- deliberate delay then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance, hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and considering the expression “sufficient cause” liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground of merits. From the records we also noticed that the assessee was ex parte before ld. CIT(A), thus, the appeal was rejected. In this regard ld. AR explained to us the reasonable cause for non-appearance before ld. CIT(A). 5. Be that as it may without going into the merits of the issues we are of the view that since assessee was ex parte before ld. CIT(A) and has now shown sufficient cause for his non- appearance thus we set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A), for deciding the same afresh after providing sufficient and adequate opportunity to the assessee subject to the cost of Rs. 2000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee in PM’s Relief Fund Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.7664/Mum/2025 Harleen Kaur Ghura and the receipt of the same be filed before ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 6. Before parting, we want to make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 7. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 18/02/2026 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "