SIDDIQUA BEGAM HASRAT ALI KHAN,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 41(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5215/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ms. Siddiqua Begam Hasrat Ali Khan, the Assessee, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The original assessment included significant additions to the Assessee's income under sections 69C and 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained investments and discrepancies between purchase consideration and stamp duty value, respectively. The Assessee's appeal was initially dismissed by the Commissioner due to a delay of 144 days in filing, attributed to miscommunication by her legal consultant. The Tribunal found the reason for the delay plausible and unintentional, thus condoning the delay but imposing a condition of a monetary deposit to the Revenue Department.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33847 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINIVAS P.
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRAJ SONI; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 147; 250; 56(2)(vii)(b); 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5215/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Siddiqua Begam Hasrat Ali Khan, 903, Sector-R12, Building No.13, Olivia Chandivali, Farm Road, Kurla West, Nahar Amrit Shakti, Maharashtra – 400 072 PAN: AJZPK9891M Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(1)(4), C41-43, G Block BKC, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Maharashtra- 400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Niraj Soni, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Srinivas P., Sr. A.R Date of Hearing :27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement :27.11.2024 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 16.08.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is observed that in the instant case the assessment order dated 10.03.2023 has been passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, whereby the Assessing Officer (AO) has made the additions of Rs.1,73,00,000/- u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as well as of Rs.3,65,114/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being difference between the purchase consideration and stamp duty value. ITA No.5215/M/2024 Ms. Siddiqua Begam Hasrat Ali Khan 2 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions as well as reopening of the case before the Ld. Commissioner by filing the first appeal, however, with a delay of 144 days in filing the appeal. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner with regard to the delay has submitted that the erstwhile legal consultant of the Assessee was dealing with the Assessee’s case and due to miscommunication/non- communication the appeal could not be filed within the due date which resulted into delay. The delay occurred was neither intentional nor malafide but because of the aforesaid reasons. The Assessee submitted that though the Assessee has demonstrated before the Ld. Commissioner the reason for delay, however, the Ld. Commissioner has not accepted the same and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine and without condoning the delay, therefore, this Hon’ble Court is prayed to take a lenient view and condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit as the Assessee has plausible case on merits. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee. 5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The reason stated for the delay occurred that due to miscommunication/non- communication the appeal could not be filed within the due date, does not appears to be convincing however, appears to be bonafide and unintentional, and therefore for the just decision and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, however subject to deposit of Rs.5,500/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” and without claiming any disallowance/exemption of this amount, but within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Thus, for the just decision and substantial justice, the impugned order is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee in the aforesaid terms. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. ITA No.5215/M/2024 Ms. Siddiqua Begam Hasrat Ali Khan 3 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2024. Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. "