Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a non-resident Indian residing in the UK, failed to comply with notices during assessment proceedings and filed an appeal with a delay of 181 days. The Assessing Officer made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 22,02,351/- for unexplained expenditure. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be genuine and unintentional. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and that the assessee was not regularly residing in India.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the case should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Meera Prakash Tewani DCIT, C-41-43 12, David Way, Bishopton BKC, Gilban Area Startford Upon Avon, CV370UG, Vs. Bandra East United Kingdom Mumbai-400 051. UK-999 999 PAN : ABJPT5911D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Rupal Shrimal Revenue by : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav Date of Hearing : 19/11/2025 Date of : 30/12/2025 pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) :-
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 4.8.2025 impugned herein passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „Act‟) for 2019-20.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer vide ex-parte order dated 14.2.2024 under section 147 read with section 144 and 144B of the I.T. Act, has made the addition of Rs. 22,02,351/- being unexplained expenditure qua purchase of foreign currency under section 69C of the Act.
Thus, the assessee being aggrieved with the said addition filed first appeal before Ld. Commissioner, however with the delay of 181 days. The assessee before Ld. Commissioner explained reasons for delay by submitting that she has migrated to UK in April 2002 and since then she works and resides in UK. Her husband retired from Navy on 31st March 2005 and also migrated to UK afterwards. As he earns pension from Navy, he regularly files his return of income as non-resident. Notices were received by her husband, who forwarded them to a known accountant Mr. P.K. Gandhi. The assessee and her husband relied on the said Accountant to make compliance to the notices. Somehow the Assessee and her husband could not any information qua assessment order etc., however, on receipt of penalty order, the Assessee got to know about passing of the assessment order and making the addition and raising the demand by the Assessing Officer. The assessee therefore immediately contacted M/s R.M. Ajgaonkar and Company, a firm of Chartered Accountant in Mumbai, who informed the Assessee that no compliance was made during assessment proceedings and further time period of filing appeal has also been expired. Thus, the assessee was prevented from filing of relevant appeal before Ld. Commissioner within time and assessee therefore prayed for condonation of delay.
The Ld. Commissioner though considered the aforesaid claim and prayer of the assessee, however declined to accept the same and ultimately dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, by more or less observing and holing as under: - Meera Prakash Tewani “That in absence of any explanation, as to why notices were not complied with and the assessee has not provided any plausible explanation, which might have caused such long delay of 181 days and in the absence of any evidence, it is assumed that the delay if any in service was because of failure on the part of the assessee. This request for condonation of delay is therefore not found to be acceptable”.
Having heard the parties and giving thoughtful consideration to the material available on record and rival submissions of the parties, it is observed that the reasons stated by the assessee that she is non- resident Indian and settled in UK in April 2002 and her husband has also retired and therefore was dependent upon the Chartered Accountant Shri P.K. Gandhi, who somehow failed to make any compliance and therefore the assessee contacted another Chartered Accountant and filed the appeal but with the delay of 181 days, prima facie seems to be genuine, plausible and un-intentional and therefore this Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing of 1st appeal before Ld. Commissioner.
Now coming to the merits of the case, as observed above that the Assessing Officer has also passed the assessment order ex-parte and assessee is not regularly residing in India and therefore for proper and just decision of the case and substantial justice, it would be appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer {JAO}. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Meera Prakash Tewani 7. The assessee is also directed to file relevant submissions/ documents before the Assessing Officer. It is clarified that in case of default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/12/2025.