KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6476/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Krina Mahesh Maru, the appellant, contesting the reassessment order for the assessment year 2015-16, which included an addition of Rs 97,00,750 under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, alleging inability to prove the source of investment in immovable property. The appellant argued that the notice under section 148 was barred by limitation and that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing, which the ITAT later condoned, acknowledging the personal difficulties faced by the appellant due to divorce and subsequent management of affairs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471363 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India & Ors. vs Rajeev Bansal, Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA RAMCHANDRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Bonafide belief; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 250; 69; 264

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 6476/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund West-400080. Vs. ITO-41(2)(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AEUPV 8901 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Aditya Ramchandra Revenue by : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 26/03/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 24.07.2022 was barred by limitation since it was beyond the surviving time limit as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Union of India & Ors. vs Rajeev Bansal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has erred in applying the directions of the Supreme Court as issued in the case of Ashish Agarwal to the appellant's case without appreciating the fact that the notice issued under Section 148 on 29.06.2021 for AY 2015 not covered by the p 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 26(2)(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 t same in view of Section 151A and the notification issued thereunder notifying e Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment proceeding as null and void. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) / National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in not condoning the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer 97,00,750 under section 69 of the Act alleging that the appellant was unable to prove the source of investment immovable property, without appreciating the fact that the appellant had no knowledge of any such pr purchased in her name. 6. Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs 97,00,750 made under section 69 of the Act alleging that the appellant was unable to prove the source of inv immovable property ought to have been deleted since the agreement towards purchase of the same has been subsequently 2. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we fi delay of more than 256 days in filing this appeal before us. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the affidavit of the assessee and ITA No. 6476/MUM/2024 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Union of India & Ors. vs Rajeev Bansal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the g Officer has erred in applying the directions of the Supreme Court as issued in the case of Ashish Agarwal to the appellant's case without appreciating the fact that the notice issued under Section 148 on 29.06.2021 for AY 2015 not covered by the provisions of TOLA. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 26(2)(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 t 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. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) / National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in not condoning the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding an amount of of Rs 97,00,750 under section 69 of the Act alleging that the appellant was unable to prove the source of investment immovable property, without appreciating the fact that the appellant had no knowledge of any such property being purchased in her name. 6. Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs 97,00,750 made under section 69 of the Act alleging that the appellant was unable to prove the source of investment in an immovable property ought to have been deleted since the agreement towards purchase of the same has been cancelled. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of more than 256 days in filing this appeal before us. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the affidavit of the assessee and Krina Mahesh Maru 2 ITA No. 6476/MUM/2024 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Union of India & 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the g Officer has erred in applying the directions of the Supreme Court as issued in the case of Ashish Agarwal to the appellant's case without appreciating the fact that the notice issued under Section 148 on 29.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 was 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 26(2)(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 Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) / National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in not 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the has erred in adding an amount of of Rs 97,00,750 under section 69 of the Act alleging that the appellant was unable to prove the source of investment in an immovable property, without appreciating the fact that the operty being 6. Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs 97,00,750 made under section 69 of the Act alleging that the estment in an immovable property ought to have been deleted since the agreement towards purchase of the same has been We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the nd that there is a delay of more than 256 days in filing this appeal before us. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the affidavit of the assessee and submitted that due to to the divorce proceedings managing everything on her own and therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced as under: “3. I hereby submit that my ex residing separately since June 2020 and we got legally divorced vide order of Family Court Mumbai at Bandra dated 13m January, 2022. Copy of the decree is attached. 4. In the meantime, the reassessment proceedings were initiated in my case for AY 2015-16 by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29th June, 2021. 5. All the notices issued during the course of the reassessment proceedings were sent to the mobile number and email id of my ex-husband. It was only after I changed my communica details after the divorce, I came to know that the reassessment proceedings were underway in my case. 6. I learnt that the assessment in my case was reopened in order to verify the source of investment made towards purchase of an immovable property be Habitats, Bal Rajeshwar Road, Mulund West. 7. During the course of the assessment proceedings, I had submitted before the Ld. knowledge of any such property which was purchased and that all the documents related to the same would be with my ex husband. Accordingly, I was trying my level best to reach him and obtain the necessary documents but I could not obtain the same at that point in time, 8. In the meantime, the reassessment order under sect r.w.s. 144 of the Act was passed on 08.05.2023 wherein an amount of Rs 97,00,750 was added to my total income under section 69 of the Act. 9. I hereby submit that all these years I have been battling an emotional turmoil and ITA No. 6476/MUM/2024 submitted that due to her separation from her husband consequent to the divorce proceedings, she was going through difficult period of managing everything on her own and therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced as under: 3. I hereby submit that my ex-husband and myself hav residing separately since June 2020 and we got legally divorced vide order of Family Court Mumbai at Bandra dated 13m January, 2022. Copy of the decree is attached. 4. In the meantime, the reassessment proceedings were initiated in my case for AY 16 by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29th June, 2021. 5. All the notices issued during the course of the reassessment proceedings were sent to the mobile number and email id of my husband. It was only after I changed my communica details after the divorce, I came to know that the reassessment proceedings were underway in my case. 6. I learnt that the assessment in my case was reopened in order to verify the source of investment made towards purchase of an immovable property bearing Flat No. B1703, Tirumala Habitats, Bal Rajeshwar Road, Mulund West. 7. During the course of the assessment proceedings, I had submitted before the Ld. Assessing Officer that I had no knowledge of any such property which was purchased and that documents related to the same would be with my ex Accordingly, I was trying my level best to reach him and obtain the necessary documents but I could not obtain the same at that point in time, 8. In the meantime, the reassessment order under sect r.w.s. 144 of the Act was passed on 08.05.2023 wherein an amount of Rs 97,00,750 was added to my total income under section 69 of the Act. 9. I hereby submit that all these years I have been battling an emotional turmoil and mental stress and I was even more Krina Mahesh Maru 3 ITA No. 6476/MUM/2024 her husband consequent was going through difficult period of managing everything on her own and therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period. The relevant part of the husband and myself have been residing separately since June 2020 and we got legally divorced vide order of Family Court Mumbai at Bandra dated 4. In the meantime, the reassessment proceedings were 16 by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 5. All the notices issued during the course of the reassessment proceedings were sent to the mobile number and email id of my husband. It was only after I changed my communication details after the divorce, I came to know that the reassessment 6. I learnt that the assessment in my case was reopened in order to verify the source of investment made towards purchase aring Flat No. B1703, Tirumala 7. During the course of the assessment proceedings, I had Assessing Officer that I had no knowledge of any such property which was purchased and that documents related to the same would be with my ex- Accordingly, I was trying my level best to reach him and obtain the necessary documents but I could not obtain the 8. In the meantime, the reassessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act was passed on 08.05.2023 wherein an amount of Rs 97,00,750 was added to my total income under 9. I hereby submit that all these years I have been battling an even more tensed because of the assessment proceeding. sudden I had to take up a huge responsibility of becoming independent on my personal front and managing everything on my own. As a result, there were many things which were going on simultaneously in my life due to which there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble NFAC 10. During the course of the First Appellate Proceedings, I was issued a notice under section 250 of the Act dated 16.10.2023 wherein I was given an oppor delay in filing the before the NFAC. 11. In response to the said notice, I filed my reply vide submission dated 17.10.2023 same. Along with the said letter I had submitted the appeal and statement of facts. 12. Thereafter, vide notice under section 250 dated 01.11.2023 it was informed to me that HARKISHN AHARthe delay in filing the appeal was condoned and I was asked to submit my response in support of 13. I was very much relieved that the delay was condoned and the fact that I had already response to a previous hearing notice, I was of the bonafide belief that the same would suffice for deciding the matter on merits. Therefore, no fresh submission was made in response to the notice dated 01.11.2023. 14. I hereby submit that subsequently I was issued another notice dated 15.01.2024 submit the reasons for condoning the delay in filing It is submitted that I came to know about the said notice only at the time when I discovered that NFAC has passed an order under section 250 in my case. 15. It is submitted before Your Honours that I was not in a position to keep a track of th the order passed under section 250 of the Act for the fact that all these years have been very tough for me. 16. The emotional turmoil coupled with mental stress and uncertainty had made it very difficult for me to cope up However, slowly and gradually with the passage of time I started to get my things in order and it was at that point in time I realized that the NFAC has passed an order in my case where the delay was not condoned. ITA No. 6476/MUM/2024 tensed because of the assessment proceeding. Further, all of a sudden I had to take up a huge responsibility of becoming independent on my personal front and managing everything on my own. As a result, there were many things which were going simultaneously in my life due to which there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble NFAC 10. During the course of the First Appellate Proceedings, I was issued a notice under section 250 of the Act dated 16.10.2023 wherein I was given an opportunity to furnish the reason for delay in filing the before the NFAC. 11. In response to the said notice, I filed my reply vide submission dated 17.10.2023 explaining the reason for the same. Along with the said letter I had submitted the grounds of and statement of facts. Thereafter, vide notice under section 250 dated 01.11.2023 it was informed to me that HARKISHN AHARthe delay in filing the appeal was condoned and I was asked to submit my support of the grounds of appeal raised by I was very much relieved that the delay was condoned and the fact that I had already submitted the facts of the case in response to a previous hearing notice, I was of the bonafide belief that the same would suffice for deciding the matter on Therefore, no fresh submission was made in response to the notice dated 01.11.2023. 14. I hereby submit that subsequently I was issued another notice dated 15.01.2024 wherein I was once again asked to submit the reasons for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted that I came to know about the said notice only at the time when I discovered that NFAC has passed an order under section 250 in my case. 15. It is submitted before Your Honours that I was not in a position to keep a track of the First Appellate Proceedings and the order passed under section 250 of the Act for the fact that all these years have been very tough for me. 16. The emotional turmoil coupled with mental stress and uncertainty had made it very difficult for me to cope up However, slowly and gradually with the passage of time I started to get my things in order and it was at that point in time I realized that the NFAC has passed an order in my case where the delay was not condoned. Krina Mahesh Maru 4 ITA No. 6476/MUM/2024 Further, all of a sudden I had to take up a huge responsibility of becoming independent on my personal front and managing everything on my own. As a result, there were many things which were going simultaneously in my life due to which there was a delay in 10. During the course of the First Appellate Proceedings, I was issued a notice under section 250 of the Act dated 16.10.2023 tunity to furnish the reason for 11. In response to the said notice, I filed my reply vide explaining the reason for the grounds of Thereafter, vide notice under section 250 dated 01.11.2023 it was informed to me that HARKISHN AHARthe delay in filing the appeal was condoned and I was asked to submit my the grounds of appeal raised by me. I was very much relieved that the delay was condoned and the facts of the case in response to a previous hearing notice, I was of the bonafide belief that the same would suffice for deciding the matter on Therefore, no fresh submission was made in response to 14. I hereby submit that subsequently I was issued another wherein I was once again asked to the appeal. It is submitted that I came to know about the said notice only at the time when I discovered that NFAC has passed an order 15. It is submitted before Your Honours that I was not in a e First Appellate Proceedings and the order passed under section 250 of the Act for the fact that 16. The emotional turmoil coupled with mental stress and uncertainty had made it very difficult for me to cope up with life. However, slowly and gradually with the passage of time I started to get my things in order and it was at that point in time I realized that the NFAC has passed an order in my case where 17. Further, there was an unde of the period when my marriage was surviving would be handled by ex decree it was even agreed that my ex indemnify any legal dues or debts arising in future out partnership firm viz. 'Steelfinity Homeware', wherein earlier I was a partner. Considering the same I was of the bonafide belief that the ongoing proceedings would be handled and taken care by my ex pertaining to said immovable were with by ex family which even the more made it difficult for me to decide the further course of action. 18. Thus, there is a delay of 264 days in filing the appeal. This affidavit is being made to justify del appeal before the Income Tax Appellant 3.1 In view of the reasons cited by the assessee, we are of the opinion that there is a sufficient cause in non limitation period for filing the appeal. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under : “There exists no sufficient or good reason for c inordinate delays of more than 108 days delay in filing appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Accordingly I decline to condone the delay of 108 days, and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation In view of the above discussion appeal is rendered as inadmissible. Hence stand 4.1 In the affidavit filed before us, the assessee has also mentioned the circumstances under which there was a delay of 108 ITA No. 6476/MUM/2024 17. Further, there was an understanding that issues arising out of the period when my marriage was surviving would be handled by ex-husband and his family. As can be seen from the decree it was even agreed that my ex-husband would indemnify any legal dues or debts arising in future out partnership firm viz. 'Steelfinity Homeware', wherein earlier I was a partner. Considering the same I was of the bonafide belief that the ongoing proceedings would be handled and taken care by my ex-husband and his family. Also, all the documents ertaining to said immovable were with by ex-husband and his family which even the more made it difficult for me to decide the further course of action. 18. Thus, there is a delay of 264 days in filing the appeal. This affidavit is being made to justify delay in filing of an appeal before the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal.” In view of the reasons cited by the assessee, we are of the opinion that there is a sufficient cause in non limitation period for filing the appeal. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for adjudication. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of no sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under : There exists no sufficient or good reason for c inordinate delays of more than 108 days delay in filing appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Accordingly I decline to condone the delay of 108 days, and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation In view of the above discussion appeal is rendered as inadmissible. Hence stand dismissed.” In the affidavit filed before us, the assessee has also mentioned the circumstances under which there was a delay of 108 Krina Mahesh Maru 5 ITA No. 6476/MUM/2024 rstanding that issues arising out of the period when my marriage was surviving would be husband and his family. As can be seen from the husband would indemnify any legal dues or debts arising in future out of the partnership firm viz. 'Steelfinity Homeware', wherein earlier I was a partner. Considering the same I was of the bonafide belief that the ongoing proceedings would be handled and taken husband and his family. Also, all the documents husband and his family which even the more made it difficult for me to decide the 18. Thus, there is a delay of 264 days in filing the appeal. ay in filing of an In view of the reasons cited by the assessee, we are of the opinion that there is a sufficient cause in non-complying the limitation period for filing the appeal. Accordingly, we admit the (A), we find that the Ld. on the ground of no sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal. The relevant finding There exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delays of more than 108 days delay in filing appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Accordingly I decline to condone the delay of 108 days, and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion appeal is rendered as In the affidavit filed before us, the assessee has also mentioned the circumstances under which there was a delay of 108 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The reasons cited by the assessee are bonafide and the appeal before the Ld. in filing the appeal be back to him for deciding the issue in dispute involved in the appeal on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 26/03/2025 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. 6476/MUM/2024 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The reasons cited by are bonafide and sufficiently explain the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we condone in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and restore back to him for deciding the issue in dispute involved in the appeal on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for sult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. nounced in the open Court on 26/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Krina Mahesh Maru 6 ITA No. 6476/MUM/2024 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The reasons cited by explain the delay in filing CIT(A). Accordingly, we condone the delay restore the matter back to him for deciding the issue in dispute involved in the appeal on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for sult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /03/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "