MEENA KISHORE SAWANT ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3306/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Meena Kishore Sawant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially dismissed due to an inordinate delay in filing, which the assessee attributed to not receiving the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, as it was sent to an incorrect email address. The assessee also contested the addition of Rs. 11,99,388 as income from other sources, claiming it was a mistake. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the communication issues and the inadvertent double reporting of income, leading to the decision to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717054 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DINKLE HARIYA; AW
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Salary income; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 3306/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Meena Kishore Sawant, Flat No.4, 1st Floor, Kshir Sudha CHS Ltd., Prarthana Samaj Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. PAN: AFBPS4457H Vs. ITO, Ward-42(2)(4), Room No. 754, 7th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. a/w Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Advocate Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 06.03.2025 for AY 2017-18. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3306/Mum/2025 Meena Kishore Sawant 1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). Panaji, ['Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law. 1.2 Otherwise also, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law, illegal and void as the same is arbitrary and perverse. 2. Ex Parte Order 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex - parte. 2.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the non attendance /non reply was for the reasons - (i) not attributable to the Appellant/ beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate or intentional; and (ii) in fact, for the reasons attributable to the Income tax Department as all the notices as well the appellate order were not issued / served on the registered e-mail address of the Appellant. 2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. 3. CONDONATION OF DELAY 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not condoning the delay. 3.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant was unable to download the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act from her e-filing portal. 3.3 The Ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that the delay, if any, in filing the appeal was not attributable to the Appellant/ beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate or intentional. 3.4 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE JON MERITS] Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3306/Mum/2025 Meena Kishore Sawant 4. ADDITION OF RS. 11,99,388/- AS ALLEGED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru ['the A.O.'] in assessing the income of Rs. 11,99,388/- as alleged income under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. 4.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in - (i) Basing his action only on surmises, suspicion and conjecture; (ii) Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations; and (iii) Ignoring relevant material and considerations as submitted by the Appellant. 4.3 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that this amount of Rs. 11,99,388/- came be mistakenly and inadvertently incorporated while uploading the return of income for A.Y. 2017-2018. 4.4 Without further prejudice, the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that this amount of Rs.11,99,388/- was not reflected in Form 26AS of the Appellant for A.Y. 2017- 2018. 4.5 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in treating the income under the head \"Income from Other Sources' as Rs. 11,99,388/- instead of Rs. 30,920/- as per Form 26AS. 4.6 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for.” 2. The assessee is an individual and having income from Salaries. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.07.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 21,21,010/- wherein the tax due was stated to be Rs. 3,88,660/-. The assessee's return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the income filed by the assessee and the tax due was computed at Rs. 4,03,042/-. The assessee on perusal of the intimation noticed that while filing the return of income the salary income to the tune of Rs. 11,97,825/- has been inadvertently offered twice once under the head \"Income from Salary\" and again under the head \"Income from Other Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3306/Mum/2025 Meena Kishore Sawant Sources\". The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) highlighting the said error and prayed that the income offered under the head \"Income from Other Sources\" should be deleted. There was an inordinate delay of 2297 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. 3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. Before us the ld. AR submitted an affidavit from the assessee, the extract of which is given as under: “AFFIDAVIT I, Meena Kishore Sawant, daughter of Dinkar Ambaji Kadam, and aged about 64 years, presently residing at Flat No. 4, 1st Floor, Kshir Sudha CHS Ltd., Prarthana Samaj Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400057, do hereby state on solemn affirmation as follows: 1. I say that I am a senior citizen, regularly assessed to tax under the Income – tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] since last around 23 years. 2. I say that I hold a post graduate degree in Commerce and CAIIB. 3. I say that I was employed at the Bank of India for around 40 years, and retired as Officer - Scale III in the month of May 2020. 4. I say that, Mr. Mohan Joshi, who used to work at Bank of India, and had taken voluntary retirement from the service to become a tax consultant, was handling my accounts and tax related matters till around A.Y. 2014 – 2015. 5. I say that, thereafter, on account of my transfer to a different branch office, it became difficult to contact and co – ordinate with Mr. Mohan Joshi for filing of returns of income. Therefore, from A.Y. 2015 – 2016, I appointed a new Chartered Accountant, Mrs. Alpa Shah [‘Late Mrs. A. Shah’]. I do not have expertise in tax related matters and, therefore I was completely reliant on her for the filing of my income tax returns and responding to notices from the Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 3306/Mum/2025 Meena Kishore Sawant department, etc. I say that Late Mrs. A. Shah filed my returns of income up to A.Y. 2020 – 2021. 6. I say that, during the material period, when Late Mrs. A Shah was looking after my taxation matters, the e – mail ID in my returns of income as well as the e – mail ID registered for the purposes of communication on the e – filing portal of the Income Tax Department was mentioned as [[e-mail]]. This e – mail ID belonged to Late Mrs. A. Shah. 7. I say that, unfortunately, sometime during the year 2021, I received a text message from her mobile number that Late Mrs. A Shah was no more. I tried to get in touch through calls and messages but received no response. Therefore, I was under the bonafide impression that she passed away in the wake of Covid – 19 pandemic. 8. I say that, thereafter during the month of June 2021, I approached Mr. Naresh Jhunjhunwala [‘Mr. Jhunjhunwala’], Chartered Accountant, for the purposes of filing my income tax returns for A.Y. 2021 – 22. In the process, my registered e – mail ID on the Income Tax Filing Portal was updated to a. Primary (Self): [e-mail] b. Secondary (Daughter): [e-mail] 9. I say that, thereafter, I began availing the services of Chartered Accountant Mr. Ketan P. Shah [‘Mr. Ketan Shah’], who is filing my returns of income from A.Y. 2022 – 2023 onwards. 10. I say that, in the month of July 2023, I received e - mails dated 02.07.2023 and 25.07.2023 from the Income Tax Department [[e-mail]] regarding outstanding demand and interest payable u/s. 220(2) amounting to Rs. 3,80,130/- for the A.Y. 2017-18. These notices were received by me on my e – mail ID. 11. I say that, prior to updating of the registered e – mail ID, to my best knowledge, all the communications were sent on the e – mail ID of Late Mrs. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 3306/Mum/2025 Meena Kishore Sawant A. Shah. Therefore, I was not aware about issuance of any intimation / communications regarding A.Y. 2017 - 2018. 12. I say that, immediately on receipt of the e – mails regarding the outstanding demand, I approached Mr. Ketan Shah to understand the reason for such notice as well as the further course of action. After going through the e – filing portal, Mr. Ketan Shah informed that the demand is pertaining to the outstanding self – assessment tax declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2017 – 2018. However, the intimation order u/s. 143(1) dated 21.11.2017 for A.Y. 2017 – 18 issued by the Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘CPC’] could not be downloaded / accessed on my e – filing portal of the Income Tax Department. 13. I say that, despite making requests to issue the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act under the tab ‘Submit Intimation Request’, including visiting the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [‘JAO’], the intimation order could not be accessed / downloaded. There was no response from CPC. Further, on the advice of Mr. Ketan Shah, when I visited the JAO on multiple occasions, neither could he access the intimation order on account of server / technical glitches / issues. 14. I say that, left with no choice, on 07.09.2023, I, with the help of Mr. Ketan Shah, filed a grievance application with CPC - ITR Department [‘the Department’] on my e – filing portal under the tab ‘Grievances’, informing the Department that I have not received the Intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2017 - 2018. I further requested the Department to kindly send the intimation on my e – mail address [[e-mail]] and to also send a copy to Mr. Ketan Shah on his e – mail ID [[e-mail].] 15. I say that I received a grievance resolution on 13.09.2023, detailing the process to follow on the Income Tax portal for accessing the intimation order. However, inspite of following the procedure as advised, the intimation order was still not accessible to me. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 3306/Mum/2025 Meena Kishore Sawant 16. I say that since the requirement of the intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act was mandatory for filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income – tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT (A)’], once again, I filed a grievance with the Department on 09.10.2023, reiterating my earlier grievance. Unfortunately, there was no response to this grievance for around eight months, until 21.05.2024, that too, purportedly treating it as resolved by simply directing “CPC to kindly look into the matter and take action accordingly.” 17. I say that, thereafter, again one month later, I received an email on 03.11.2023 from [e-mail], stating that my return for A.Y. 2023 – 24 was processed on 21.09.2023, determining a refund of Rs. 8,340/- and that this refund was adjusted against the outstanding demand for A.Y. 2017 - 18. 18. I say that, in the absence of the intimation order for A.Y. 2017 – 18, I could not understand, how to proceed ahead with the filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). Under the circumstances, again on 09.11.2023, I made another grievance application, requesting the CPC-ITR Department to provide the Intimation order. In the application, I also informed the Department that I did not receive any response, despite making similar requests on numerous occasions. I once again requested the Department to send the intimation to my e – mail address [[e-mail]] and to also send a copy to Mr. Ketan Shah at [[e-mail]]. I say that this grievance was again purportedly resolved on 18.11.2023, similar to the resolution dated 13.09.2023. However, inspite of following the procedure as advised, the intimation order was still not accessible to me. 19. I say that, again, one month later, on 16.12.2023, I placed another grievance application stating as under: “I have received a notice which looks inappropriate. Can someone please help me resolve this issue. Please send me intimation document (AY 2017-18). Also when I try to download Intimation from here, it gives error. Please help asap.” Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 3306/Mum/2025 Meena Kishore Sawant 20. I say that this grievance was resolved only two months later, on 08.02.2024, stating that the option to download the intimation was available on the e – filing portal. 21. I say that I forwarded this intimation to Mr. Ketan Shah for further course of action. I say that after verifying the demand as per the intimation with the returned income, it was realized that incorrect particulars were incorportated under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ while filing the return of income for A.Y. 2017 - 2018. 22. I say that I have never earned such huge interest income in my entire lifetime. This is reflected from the income declared by me in various years, which is tabulated as under: A.Y. Income from Salary (Rs.) Income from other sources (Rs.) Tax Paid (Rs.) Amoun t payabl e (Rs.) E – mail address mentioned 2013 –14 6,63,473/- 16,040/- 46,190/- 0 [e-mail] 2014 –15 7,44,568/- 22,497/- 65,320/- 0 [e-mail] 2015 –16 8,16,338/- 25,041/- 63,714/- 0 [e-mail] 2016 –17 12,76,986/- 27,444/- 1,57,621/- 0 [e-mail] 2017 –18 11,97,825/- 11,99,388/- 1,19,002/- 3,88,66 0/- [e-mail] 2018 –19 11,25,848/- 26,573/- 87,845/- 0 [e-mail] 2019 –20 11,68,520/- 32,652/- 1,28,147/- 0 [e-mail] 2020 –21 14,23,595/- 14,722/- 1,99,073/- 0 [e-mail] 2021 –22 16,70,063/- 1,91,469/- 3,12,186/- 0 [e-mail] 2022 –23 4,34,650/- 2,65,738/- 22,460/- 0 [e-mail] 2023 –24 4,76,290/- 1,01,039/- 8,100/- 0 [e-mail] 23. I say that, in order to substantiate my claim regarding filing of incorrect particulars under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’, I made a request with Bank of India, with whom I maintained my salary account, to provide a copy of the bank statements for F.Y. 2016 – 2017. 24. I say that, on receipt of the bank statement and confirming the fact regarding the actual interest income earned by me in F.Y. 2016 - 2017, Mr. Ketan Shah filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) against the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 04.04.2024. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 3306/Mum/2025 Meena Kishore Sawant 25. I say that, according to me, the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act was received on 08.02.2024 and, therefore, there was a delay of only 26 days in filing the appeal. However, out of abundant caution, assuming that the intimation was sent on the e – mail ID of Late Mrs. A. Shah, while filing the appeal, in Form 35, the date of service of the order was mentioned as the date of intimation itself. 26. I say that, as narrated above, such delay was not due to deliberate negligence and was unintentional and was, in fact, due to reasons beyond my control. I say that there was no such delay in the past. 27. I say that, thereafter, during the first appellate proceeding, only the communication titled ‘Enablement of communication’ was sent on my registered email ID [Primary (Self): [e-mail]]. All the remaining notices were sent to the email ID [e-mail], which belonged to Late Mrs. A. Shah. The details of notices issued during the first appellate proceeding are tabulated as under: Date Notice Email ID on which notice was sent Reply filed 01-May-2024 Enablement of Communication Window [e-mail] [e-mail] 01-Jan-2025 Hearing Notice u/s 250 [e-mail] 08-Jan-2025 Hearing Notice u/s 250 [e-mail] 15-Jan-2025 27-Feb-2025 Hearing Notice u/s 250 [e-mail] 28. I say that, as can be seen from the above table, all the notices were sent on the email ID – [e-mail], despite the fact that my Primary registered email - ID, the email - ID mentioned in Form 35 as well as the email - ID mentioned in all my income tax returns from A.Y. 2021 – 22 onwards was [e-mail]. I say that, from the year 2023, to the best of my knowledge, all the communications from the Income Tax Department were sent on my e – mail address [e-mail], including e – mails regarding grievance resolutions, outstanding demand notices, refund due as well as acknowledgement of filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the intimation order of A.Y. 2017 – 18. However, for reasons best known to the Income Tax Department, all the notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on the e – mail ID of Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 3306/Mum/2025 Meena Kishore Sawant Late Mrs. A. Shah [[e-mail]]. Under the circumstances, the notices dated 01.01.2025 and 27.02.2025 remained unattended. 29. I say that, during the month of January 2025, while checking the status of the appeal filed for A.Y. 2017 – 2018, Mr. Ketan Shah came to know that already two notices dated 01.01.2025 and 08.01.2025 were issued by the Ld. CIT (A). Immediately, on such realization, Mr. Ketan Shah filed a preliminary response dated 15.01.2025, which is reproduced as under: “With reference to the above appeal I say that I am a retired senior citizen. My primary income for F.Y. 2016-17 was salary income, which was duly offered to tax in the return of income filed for A.Y. 2017-18. I say that while filling the return of income, the staff of my chartered accountant the staff mistakenly offered interest income of Rs 11,99,388/- instead of interest income of Rs 2593 as reflected in form 26AS. As such the return of income was filed with amount payable of Rs 3,88,660/-. Since the interest income was mistakenly offered, the appellant did not pay the corresponding tax against this wrongly offered interest income. This fact is also evidence from the bank statement of the appellant for F.Y. 2016-17. I am in the process of compiling the necessary details and documents and therefore request your Honour to grant an adjournment of four weeks. I request your honour to go through the past income tax returns and Form 26AS available in my E-Filling Portal which will clearly show that nowhere in the past or subsequent years, I have earned such huge interest income or declared it in the return of income.” Along with this response, I also submitted a copy of my bank statements. 30. However, before I could submit my detailed response, for the reasons mentioned above, the Ld. CIT (A) dismissed my appeal, vide order dated 06.03.2025, on the ground of alleged inordinate delay in filing the appeal. I say that, on going through all the notices issued by the Ld. CIT (A), it is noticed that no intimation was given regarding intention to dismiss the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 31. I say that on the same day, my previous CA. Mr. Rakesh Jhunjhunwala, on his own accord, filed a request for rectification application for A.Y. 2017 – 18, pointing out the inadvertent mistake in filing the particulars of income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ as mentioned in the return of income, with a request to delete the outstanding demand. 32. I say that the order dated 06.03.2025 is not received on my registered e - mail ID. It is only somewhere in the month of April 2025, while going through the e – filing portal and checking the status of the appeal, Mr. Ketan Shah came to know that the order was already passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on 06.03.2025. On such realization, with the help of Mr. Ketan Shah, I took immediate steps to file an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) dated 06.03.2025 before the Income – Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 3306/Mum/2025 Meena Kishore Sawant tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (‘Hon’ble Tribunal’). The last date to file the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal was 05.05.2025. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) before the Hon’ble Tribunal on 09.05.2025 with a minor delay of 04 [Four] days. 33. I say that, for the above stated detailed reasons and circumstances, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) as well as before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 34. I say that the delay is purely due to the circumstances beyond my control and, in any case, not due to any deliberate negligence or carelessness on my part. I further say that, there was no deliberate or willful non - compliance on my part and the lapse, if at all, was totally unintended.” 4. From the perusal of the above, we notice that the main reason for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is that the assessee was not aware of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act since the same has been sent to wrong email address. Considering the fact unique in assessee's case and considering the fact that the assessee is a senior citizen, we are of the view that the condonation petition filed by the assessee has to be considered leniently. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal and examine the claim of the assessee that the income has been erroneously offered twice based on merits. The assessee is directed to file the necessary evidences in support of the claim and co-operate with the appellate proceeding without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 5. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18-08-2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (PADMAVATHY S) Judicial Member Accountant Member *SK, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No. 3306/Mum/2025 Meena Kishore Sawant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "