MOHAMMED SHARIF NIZAMUDDIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(3), MUMBAI

From the records, we noticed that assessee has filed a detailed explanation thereby explaining the reason for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal delayed before Ld. CIT(A) and the contents of the affidavit are as under: Mohammed Sharif Nizamuddin Dalvi (aged 75 years) residing at F/124, Sagar Apartment, Sonapur Lane, Fr. Peter P Marg, Kurla West, Mumbai 400 070 do hereby state and confirm on solemn affirmation as follows: - The assessment order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed on 19-02- 2024 and an appeal against the aforesaid order was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on 06- 03-2025. Therefore, there has been a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Md. Sharif Nizamuddin Dalvi , Mumbai

Further, the penalty order under section 271AAC of the Act was passed on 12-08-2024 and an appeal against the aforesaid order was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on 06- 03-2025, thus resulting in a delay of 175 days in filing the appeal. 3. I state before Your Honours that I am a senior citizen aged 75 years and suffering from several health issues. I submit that I have undergone Angioplasty twice, once, in 1995 and then in 2015. In addition to the same, I am also suffering from prostate, diabetes, asthama and other ailments. I am herewith submitting my medical reports and prescription which would prove that I have been consulting specialist doctors for my treatment. The first page from the medical report gives the list of doctors whom I have been consulting for my ailments. (pg 1 to 25) In addition to the above, I live with my wife who is also a senior citizen. We do not have a son who would support us here in India and my daughters are married and settled with their respective families. Therefore, it is submitted before Your Honour that it becomes very difficult for me and my wife to even manage the day-to- day routine works, especially considering the fact that we both are senior citizens and the ailments that I suffer. 4. I was in receipt of a notice from the Income Tax Department and the said notice was dated 21-03-2022. At that point in time, I could not understand the basic premise of the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act, asking me to show cause as to why my assessment should not opened for the assessment year under consideration. This was for the very reason because I was not aware about the Income-tax proceedings. Subsequently, I was in receipt of an order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 31- 03-2022. (pg 26 to 32) 5. Upon going through the aforesaid notice and order I could understand that there was an allegation that I had sold a property for Rs 1,00,00,000 during the assessment year under consideration. This came as a complete shock for me, since no Md. Sharif Nizamuddin Dalvi , Mumbai such transaction had been undertaken by me during the assessment year under consideration. However, upon connecting the dots i.e. the information relating to a property and the monetary consideration of Rs 1,00,00,000 I recollected that during the assessment year under consideration my daughter had purchased a property for a similar amount out of her own funds and that she had included my name as a joint owner for Convenience purpose. Accordingly. I sent an e-mail to mumbai.ito26.2.1@incometax.gov.in i.e. to Juri ictional Assessing Officer stating the above-mentioned facts and I had also submitted a copy of the purchase agreement. 7. In addition to the above, I had also raised a grievance on the Income-tax portal on the said issue on 26-10.2023 (pg 33 to 34). Also, on 17-11-2023 I sent an email to 'efilingwebmanager@incometax.gov.in' and narrated the facts once again. Copy of the mail communication is at pg 35. 8. Further, I once again raised a grievance on 22-11-2023 to which I was given the below- mentioned resolution With respect to the concern raised by you, it is seen that you have successfully submitted the response to the Notice vide DIN:ITBA/AST/S/85/2023- 24/1057370523(1)(Notice received on 26-Oct-2023) of the IT Act 1961 on 12-Oct- 2023. Your ticket is thus closed as no pending action is there. Note: For further assistance, you may write an email to <samadhan.faceless.assessment@incometax.gov.in>. Copy of the grievance raised and the e-mail communication from the CPC is attached at pg 36 to 42. 9. Having understood that my response has been considered I was of the bonafide belief that the issues raised by the Income- tax Department have been addressed and no further actions need to be taken, Md. Sharif Nizamuddin Dalvi , Mumbai

It is submitted before Your Honours that owing to the fact that I am not comfortable with technology, that I have been suffering from a number of health ailments and also that I do not have a son who would support me during such crucial situations, majority of the notices have remained unaddressed since the same got missed on account of oversight. 11. I further state that I came across a penalty order passed in my case under section 270A of the Act. I was very much surprised to have come across such an order because I was always of the belief that all the issues raised by the Income-tax Department have been addressed. With the limited knowledge which I could gather, I understood that if I am aggrieved by any order passed by the Income-tax Department then I should prefer an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Accordingly, I filed an appeal against the order passed under section 270A of the Act. It is stated that I had not sought any professional help for the same. I submit that considering my health condition, age and the very fact I did not have any financial support, the aforesaid appeal was filed by me on my own without taking any professional assistance. 13. In fact, I had filed two appeals against the same penalty order under section 270A of Act, that too selecting the wrong section i.e. Section 271 in the first appeal filed and Section 147 in the second appeal filed. (pg 43 to 54) It is also to be noted that even the date of order was wrongly mentioned. It was mentioned as 04-07-2024 instead of 22-08- 2024. This further justifies the fact that I had no knowledge of the proceedings under the Income-tax Act on account of which these errors and inaccuracies cropped up. 14. Subsequently, I received a recovery notice dated 06-02- 2025 from the Income-tax Department wherein it was mentioned that an amount of Rs 1.08 crore was outstanding (pg 55 to 56). Such a huge demand gave shivers to me and at the first place I Md. Sharif Nizamuddin Dalvi , Mumbai did not know what needs to be done. Thereafter, I realized that handling income-tax matter was beyond my capabilities and I came to a conclusion that I would need professional help. Accordingly, I approached a Chartered Accountant and sought guidance with respect to the further course of action. 15. It was at this point in time I was told by the Chartered Accountant that not one, but fours orders have been passed in my case. This further shook me having learnt that all this time I was not aware about the proceedings which were underway in my case. 16. Having learnt so, I immediately took assistance of the Chartered Accountant and filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC against the orders passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and section 271AAC of the Act with a delay of 351 days and 175 days respectively. 17. At this juncture, it is important to peruse the e-mail communication sent by the Chartered Accountant. He had pointed out that fresh appeals against the order under section 270A (penalty order against which I had personally filed two appeals as stated above) cannot be filed since the DIN No. has already been utilized against another appeal filed. (pg 57 to 58) 18. Based on the facts as stated above, I humbly submit before Your Honours that had I been aware about the proceedings under the Income-tax Act, there would have been no reason for me to file an appeal only against the penalty order under section 270A of Act before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and not file any appeals against the orders passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and section 271AAC of the Act. Therefore, I plead before Your Honours to kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and restore the appeal back with a direction the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits. 5. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and after hearing the parties and also keeping in Md. Sharif Nizamuddin Dalvi , Mumbai view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly.

Since we have already condoned the delay, therefore we restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. Md. Sharif Nizamuddin Dalvi , Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

As the facts and circumstances in this appeal is identical to ITA No 5224/Mum/2025 for the A.Y 2018-19 (except variance in days of delay) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeal also stands allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes.

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.