KAILASHIDEVI UMAKANT BHARADWAJ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O WARD 41(1)(2), MUMBAI

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

The present appeal is delayed by 31 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the present appeal, duly supported by the affidavit of the assessee stating as follows: - “1. That I am the Appellant in ITA No. 9471/MUM/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 pending before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, E-Bench, Mumbai, and as such am well acquainted with the facts of the case and competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the Assessing Officer on 29.04.2023 in my case determining total income and raising a demand. 3. That I am a homemaker with no formal education or knowledge of income tax law, procedures, or limitation periods, and I have always been dependent on my Chartered Accountant for all income tax and e-filing related matters. 4. That the income tax e-filing portal and all communications from the Department were being handled by my Chartered Accountant, who had registered his own email ID rkchoudhary1728@gmail.com" on the portal for the purpose of receiving notices and communications. 5. That I did not have any independent access to the aforesaid email account and was therefore unaware of the assessment order dated 29.04.2023 and of the statutory time limit for filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. That due to the above circumstances, the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was filed belatedly on 18.05.2024, which was beyond the prescribed period of limitation under section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in a delay of about 385 days. 7. That at the time of filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), no separate application for condonation of delay was filed, as I was not aware of such procedural requirements and was relying entirely on my Chartered Accountant's advice and actions. 8. That the learned CIT(A), vide order dated 27.09.2025, dismissed my appeal in limine solely on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the case.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others: 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well established that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal. In view of the above and having perused the affidavit, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the limitation period, and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and we proceed to decide the appeal.

It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay without adjudicating the

We find that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the document as sought by the AO and, therefore, the assessment was completed on the best judgment basis under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act on the basis of the material available on record. In the affidavit of the assessee, as reproduced in the foregoing paragraphs, the reasons for not filing the details during the assessment proceedings have been stated. From the perusal of the order passed in the case of the assessee’s husband by the learned CIT(A), we find

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances as noted above, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits and produce all the documents in support of its claim. Since in the present appeal, the assessee also did not appear before the AO, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication on merit after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish all the details as may be sought by the AO for complete adjudication. As a matter is being restored to the jurisdictional AO for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/03/2026