MR. SUSHMA JAIRAJ BHANDARI ,MUMBAI V. I.T.O 25(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5679/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sushma Jairaj Bhandari, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which dismissed her appeal in limine due to a delay of 123 days in filing. The original assessment for the year 2015-16 was reopened by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on system-generated information about property transactions involving the assessee, who had not filed a return of income. The AO completed the assessment ex parte, adding the sale and purchase considerations to the assessee's income. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal due to the delay, which the Tribunal found unjustified given the circumstances of the assessee's health issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473748 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHANGEPATIL PUSHKARAJ RAMESH
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH R. MODI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 139(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM ITA No. 5679/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sushma Jairaj Bhandari Janu Villa Bunglow, Chikuwadi, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 092 Vs. I.T.O. 25(3)(4) Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AIMPB 7973 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Satish R. Modi Respondent by : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: This is an appeal by the assessee against order date 05.09.2024, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2015- 16. 2. The sole grievance of the assessee in the appeal is with regard to dismissal of its appeal in limine on the ground of delay. 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file any return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) received system generated information indicating that in the year under consideration, the assessee had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.2,04,47,000/- and also purchased a property for Rs.60 2 ITA No. 5679/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2015-16) Sushma Jairaj Bhandari vs. ITO lacs. Since, the assessee had not filed any return of income, based on such information, the A.O. reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. As alleged by the A.O., the assessee did not comply with any of the statutory notices. Hence, in absence of any response from assessee’s side, the A.O. proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte, to the best of his judgement. While doing so, he added back the sale consideration of Rs.2,04,47,000/- as well as the amount paid by the assessee towards purchase of property amounting to Rs.60 lacs. Ultimately, the total income was determined at Rs.2,64,47,000/-. 4. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned first appellate authority. However, there was delay of 123 days in filing the appeal. Though, the assessee explained the cause of delay, however, it did not found favour with learned first appellate authority. Ultimately, he dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine without condoning delay. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee went through serious personal problems during the period, which resulted in belated filing of appeal before first appellate authority. Drawing our attention to the Affidavit of the assessee, he submitted that there was serious health issues relating to both the assessee and her husband. In support of such contention, the assessee furnished documentary evidences. 6. Having considered rival submissions and gone through the contents of the Affidavit and other relevant materials on record, we are of the view that there was 3 ITA No. 5679/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2015-16) Sushma Jairaj Bhandari vs. ITO sufficient cause, which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time before learned first appellate authority. We must observe, by not filing the appeal in time, the assessee would not have gained any benefit. Rather, the assessee had put herself at risk of the appeal not getting decided on merits and the sword of the addition made and demand created hanging on her head. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that learned first appellate authority should not have allowed himself to be influenced by technicalities. Rather, he should have done well to condone the delay and decided the appeal on merits. In view of the afore-said, we restore the matter back to the file of learned first appellate authority with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Billaiya) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 28.02.2025 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "