SANDHYA SITAL SANGTANI,NAVI MUMBAI V. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

ITA 3960/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sandhya Sital Sangtani, who sold an immovable property and did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO conducted a best judgment assessment under section 144(1) of the Income Tax Act, adding the total income from the property sale to tax. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 359 days in filing, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The assessee, citing health issues, appealed to the Tribunal, which found merit in her reasons for the delay and the need for a de novo assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470833 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji& Ors., [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL PUNMIYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 142(1); 250; 50C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3960/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sandhya Sital Sangtani 302, Anand Nagar Sec 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) ITO 28(3)(1), Vashi Rly Stn, Navi Mumbai. PAN/GIR No. AADPK5756E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar-CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM: This appeal has been directed against the order dated 30.04.2024 by NFAC Delhi Mumbai [in short “CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [in short “the Act”], Vide this impugned order by learned CIT(A) for A.Y. 2018- 19, wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on 2 ITA No. 3960/Mum/2024 Sandhya Sital Sangtani account of delay and learned CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay for 359 days in filing the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the appeal are that the assessee Sandhya Sital Sangtani has sold an immovable property at Belapur, Navi Mumbai to Mr. Sarbajit Rana and Mrs. Soma Rana on 15.01.2018 for Rs. 1,35,00,000/- during the financial year 2017-18 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 and in the absence of the return of income, the income earned from property sale remained unexplained. After taking prior approval of the appellate authority u/s. 148AB of the Act, show cause notice added 21.03.2022 was issued to the assessee but the assessee failed to comply it. During the assessment proceedings, notice u/s. 142(1) were issued on various dates but the assessee did not respond. All the notices issued and served through e-mail upon the assessee but the assessee did not comply and has not made any submission or document before the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO has accordingly completed the best judgment assessment u/s. 144(1) of the Act and has added the total income of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- and brought the same to the tax along with penalty notice issued therein. The said order of the Ld.AO was challenged by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) seeking condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) of 3 ITA No. 3960/Mum/2024 Sandhya Sital Sangtani 359 days. Vide impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay and dismissed the appeal without deciding the same on merit. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal and has raised the following grounds: “1. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld AO. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- on account of sale consideration on sale of immovable property u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the delay in filing the appeal as requested by the assessee. 4. On the facts and Circumstances of the case as well as in Law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in charging interest under section 234A,234B,234C and 234D of the act 5. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in initiating the penalty proceeding u/s 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellant craves liberty to add, amend, and alter and / or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. We have heard Ld.AR as well as the Ld.DR, the Ld.AR at the very outset submitted that the assessee was suffering from cancer and could not appear before the Ld.AO and failed to file the response. Similarly, the assessee could not file the appeal in time before Ld. CIT(A) for the said reasons of her illness. It is therefore submitted that the justice requires that in the facts and circumstances, the assessee be given opportunity to present its case before Ld.AO and impugned order as well as Ld.AO’s order be set 4 ITA No. 3960/Mum/2024 Sandhya Sital Sangtani aside and matter be restored to the file of the Ld.AO. The Ld.DR on the other hand supported the judgment of the lower authorities stating that there is no illegality and perversity in the same and it was the assessee who failed to avail the opportunity given by the Ld.AO and has not filed appeal in time before the Ld. CIT(A) and as such prayed for dismissal of the case. 5. We have considered the given submissions and examined the record. We noticed that before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted the request letter as a annexure giving reason for condonation of delay which has been reproduced as basis of the impugned order. The assessee has sought condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) primarily on the ground of her ill health and she being senior citizen as she remained unwell and disturbed throughout the year. It is further stated that she was not having enough knowledge of the accounts and income tax matter. She further claimed that since she was not having knowledge of accounts and income tax matter and was no aware of the compliances to the notice issued by the Ld.AO. It is further stated that due to family issues she could not approach the CA on time due to unavoidable reasons. 6. We have noticed that before us the assessee has filed affidavit cum declaration with respect to the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the affidavit 5 ITA No. 3960/Mum/2024 Sandhya Sital Sangtani we have noticed that the assessee has given sufficient case and reasons for not filing the appeal in time before learned CIT(A). Nothing contrary has been brought on record by the revenue which may contradict the affidavit filed by the assessee. 7. The assessee put reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji& Ors., [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC),dated 19.02.1987, wherein the Apex Court was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under: “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.” 8. For the above reasons, we are of considered opinion that the assessee needs to be heard on merit and since the assessment order is also passed ex-parte and erred of 6 ITA No. 3960/Mum/2024 Sandhya Sital Sangtani justice required that the assessment order need to be passed denovo. For the above reasons the impugned order and the order of Ld.AO are set side. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld.AO who shall decide the matter denovo after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee is directed to file its submissions, documents before the Ld.AO within a period to 60 days of this order. 9. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BR BASKARAN) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 21/02/2025 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// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai "