PRITI PRAVIN KAPADIA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 28(2)(4), MUMBAI

Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file any return of income originally u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). Subsequently, basis the receipt of information that the assessee has placed time deposit of Rs. 19 lakhs with HDFC Bank, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued. In response to the said notice, no return of income was filed and thereafter, after issuance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act and a show cause notice which again remain non-complied, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, wherein the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs as un-explained money u/s. 69B of the Act.

The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since dismissed the appeal on account of filing of appeal being barred by limitation and against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR taken us through the condonation application as well as affidavit submitted by the assessee, a senior citizen, before the Ld.CIT(A) and it was submitted that the assessee did not receive the assessment order either physically or on her e-mail ID and it was only subsequent to receipt of demand recovery notice in the financial year 2023-24 that the assessee came to know about the fact that the assessment order has been passed in her case. It was submitted that the assessee made a request to the AO and also raised a query on the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) and pursuant to that, the AO made available the assessment order and demand notice on 10-01-2025 and thereafter, the appeal was filed on 06- 02-2025. It was accordingly submitted that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) due to non-receipt of the assessment order and original demand notice, in absence of which the assessee could not have filed the appeal. It was submitted that the ld CIT(A) has stated that assessment order has been digitally signed and it is not possible that there could be some much delay in delivering the digital document to the email-ID of the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee has confirmed on affidavit that she has not received the assessment order and demand notice and therefore, it is for the department to demonstrate that the same were delivered and communicated to the assessee, however, there is nothing on record to this effect. It was further submitted that as evident from the communication by the AO as well as from perusal of the assessment order, the same has been signed manually by the AO and therefore, the findings of the ld CIT(A) are not based on facts on record and the appeal has been summarily dismissed as barred by limitation. Reliance was also placed on various decisions including the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Land Acquisition Collector vs Mst. Katiji & others and decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Kirit Kumar Champaklal Bhimani vs ITO (ITA No.4145/Mum/2025 dated 31/10/2025). It was submitted that the assessee be allowed an opportunity to be heard on merits of the case as she can demonstrate the source of FDs were out of her own funds as well as money received by way of gifts from family members namely, son and daughter –in-law and certain details regarding the placing of deposits in form of fixed deposits and source of such deposits in terms of amount received by son and daughter-in-law and copies of the bank statements have been placed on record and it was submitted that the assessee shall co-operate and attend to the proceedings and the matter may be set-aside for necessary verification.