UDAY LAPSIA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MRS MADHURI KIRTI LAPSIA ,MUMBAI V. ACIT CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI

ITA 576/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Uday Lapsia, the legal heir of Late Mrs. Madhuri Kirti Lapsia, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld the additions made in the assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A), which the assessee challenged on grounds of procedural improprieties, including non-receipt of the assessment order and notices due to email mismanagement. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the procedural lapses and the substantial justice principle, leading to the setting aside of the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773473 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Limitation Act, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: M. SUBRAMNIAM
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 576/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Late Mrs. Madhuri Kirti Lapsia, through Uday Lapsia Legal Heir 43, Bharat Tirth CHS, V N Purav Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Vs. The Asst. CIT-27(2), Vashi Navi Mumbai-400703. PAN NO. AAAPL 7290 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. M. Subramniam Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 22/09/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15, raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in dismissing the appeal against the assessment order dated 23.12.2019 for AY2014-15 made on Late Mrs.Madhuri Kirti Lapasia (Legal heir Mr.Uday lapasiya). Printed from counselvise.com 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erre dismissing the appeal and there by upholding the additions aggregating to Rs.1,00,90,686/ dated 23.12.2019 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 50 days in fili copy of the application for condonation of the delay and the affidavit filed by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee stands demised and being represented submitted that the delay if a legal heir of the assessee did not get any physical copy order and had no knowledge about 14.01.2025. The Ld. counsel submitted that mail ID taxation@unkhona.c and the copy transmitted to the e Form No. 35, was tagged spam and went un downloaded by the tax consulta assessee’s legal heir and immediately thereafter same was downloaded on 14/01/2025 The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee was prevented by way ‘sufficient cause’ and therefore, be condoned. 3. On the contrary, the Ld. Department objected for condonation of delay. Uday Lapsia Legal Heir of Late Mrs. ITA No. 576/MUM/2025 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erre dismissing the appeal and there by upholding the additions aggregating to Rs.1,00,90,686/- as per the assessment order dated 23.12.2019 for AY2014-15 At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal. He referred to the copy of the application for condonation of the delay and the affidavit filed by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee stands demised and being represented by legal heir. The Ld. counsel submitted that the delay if any is on account of reason that the legal heir of the assessee did not get any physical copy knowledge about order of the Ld. CIT(A) till 14.01.2025. The Ld. counsel submitted that order was sent on [e-mail] to which the legal heir had no and the copy transmitted to the e-mail address mentioned tagged carbon copy(CC) and the same went un-noticed. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was downloaded by the tax consultant while viewing the tax portal of the assessee’s legal heir and immediately thereafter same was on 14/01/2025 and appeal was filed on 27/01/2025 The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee was prevented by way and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal might On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) objected for condonation of delay. Uday Lapsia Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Madhuri Kirti Lapsia 2 ITA No. 576/MUM/2025 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in dismissing the appeal and there by upholding the additions as per the assessment order At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that ng the appeal. He referred to the copy of the application for condonation of the delay and the affidavit filed by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee stands legal heir. The Ld. counsel ny is on account of reason that the legal heir of the assessee did not get any physical copy of impugned the Ld. CIT(A) till order was sent on e- legal heir had no access mentioned in the and the same landed in noticed. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was nt while viewing the tax portal of the assessee’s legal heir and immediately thereafter same was on 27/01/2025. The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee was prevented by way the delay in filing the appeal might al Representative (DR) Printed from counselvise.com 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record consideration is whether the delay in filing the present appeal occasioned on account of forwarding of the e than the address notified in Form No. 35 cause within the merit of s provisions of the Income 4.1 It is a well-settled principle of law that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction, so as to advance the cause of substantial justice. The Hon Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (SC) has enunciated that when substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, the cause of substantial justice must prevail, for no party can be permitted perpetuation of injustice merely by reason of a non 4.2 In the case before us, the assessee has explained that delay in filing of appeal happened due to the physical copy of the order ID other than the ID wh legal heir of the deceased assessee portal. The explanation so furnished is consistent, duly supported by an affidavit, and does n Uday Lapsia Legal Heir of Late Mrs. ITA No. 576/MUM/2025 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. The short issue that arises of consideration is whether the delay in filing the present appeal on account of forwarding of the e-mail to address other than the address notified in Form No. 35, constitutes sufficient cause within the merit of section 5 of limitation Act, 1963 r.w. rovisions of the Income-tax Act,1961. settled principle of law that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction, so as to advance the cause of substantial justice. The Hon Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has enunciated that when substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, the cause of substantial justice must prevail, for no party can be permitted to claim a vested right in the perpetuation of injustice merely by reason of a non-deliberate delay In the case before us, the assessee has explained that delay in filing of appeal happened due to (i) non-receipt f the order; (ii) forwarding of order ID other than the ID which was provided in Form No. 35,. legal heir of the deceased assessee had no access to the The explanation so furnished is consistent, duly supported an affidavit, and does not disclose any element of mala Uday Lapsia Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Madhuri Kirti Lapsia 3 ITA No. 576/MUM/2025 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused . The short issue that arises of consideration is whether the delay in filing the present appeal mail to address other constitutes sufficient ection 5 of limitation Act, 1963 r.w. settled principle of law that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction, so as to advance the cause of substantial justice. The Hon’ble Supreme (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has enunciated that when substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, the cause of substantial justice must to claim a vested right in the deliberate delay. In the case before us, the assessee has explained that the receipt/service of forwarding of order on the e-mail ich was provided in Form No. 35,. (iii) The access to the income-tax The explanation so furnished is consistent, duly supported ot disclose any element of malafides or Printed from counselvise.com culpable negligence. On on the part of the assessee. 4.3 In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient c prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of appeal stands condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on the merit of the issue raised on the grounds. We find that despite numerous no mentioned in para 1.1 of the impugned order made on the part of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee it was explained that due to than ID mentioned in the form No. 35, the could not represent before the Ld. CI submitted that assessee is willing to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and file the submission in respect of grounds raised. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The assessee is it liberty to raise any addition ground if so required. Uday Lapsia Legal Heir of Late Mrs. ITA No. 576/MUM/2025 culpable negligence. On the contrary, it manifests bona on the part of the assessee. In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal stands condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the material on the merit of the issue raised on the grounds. We find that despite numerous notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned in para 1.1 of the impugned order, no compliance was made on the part of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee it was explained that due to service of the notices on the e than ID mentioned in the form No. 35, the legal heir of could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. counsel submitted that assessee is willing to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and file the submission in respect of grounds raised. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The assessee is it liberty to raise any addition ground if so Uday Lapsia Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Madhuri Kirti Lapsia 4 ITA No. 576/MUM/2025 the contrary, it manifests bonafide conduct In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the assessee was ause from filing the appeal within the days in filing the appeal stands condoned, and the appeal is admitted for We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the material on the merit of the issue raised on the grounds. tices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) as no compliance was made on the part of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee it was of the notices on the e-mail ID other legal heir of assessee T(A). The Ld. counsel submitted that assessee is willing to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and file the submission in respect of grounds raised. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside (A) and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The assessee is it liberty to raise any addition ground if so Printed from counselvise.com 6. 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: 22/09/2025 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// Uday Lapsia Legal Heir of Late Mrs. ITA No. 576/MUM/2025 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ounced in the open Court on 22/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Uday Lapsia Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Madhuri Kirti Lapsia 5 ITA No. 576/MUM/2025 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /09/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "