Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order with a delay of 210 days. The assessee cited severe health issues of her mother-in-law, hospitalization, and a communication gap with her CA as reasons for the delay. The assessing officer rejected the appeal on the grounds of limitation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal subject to a deposit of Rs. 11,000/-. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had wrongly dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation and directed the Commissioner to decide the appeal on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner was justifiable and whether the Commissioner was correct in dismissing the appeal on the point of limitation without deciding the merits.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03.07.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
At the outset, it is observed that there was delay of 210 days in filing 1st appeal before Ld. Commissioner challenging the assessment order dt. 24.04.2023 u/s 147 read with 144(b) of the act, on which the Assessee though claimed before the Ld. Commissioner that her mother in law had suffered severe health issues and for that reason she remained hospitalized for long time. Therefore, the Assessee went to her native place at Chindwara M/s. Dhanshri Dilip Gangwani Madhya Pradesh, which resulted into not receiving the notices and Assessment order at the Mumbai address and therefore the Assessee was unaware about such proceedings. The Assessee was also not in good mental condition to make any reply, as despite of medical treatment, her mother law is no more in this world. Though Ld. Commissioner considered the reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay but not being convinced with the same, ultimately rejected the appeal of the assessee, on the point of imitation.
The Ld. Counsel therefore has submitted that the Assessee in addition to the reasons stated above has also claimed that she has also appointed Mr. Amrat Lalwani, Ld. CA for filing appeal and thus provided requisite login credentials and documents to him, however, due to communication gap and further follow-up, the delay of approximately 7 months in filing of appeal has been occurred, which was neither intentional nor malafide but because of the aforesaid reasons. The Ld. Counsel also filed an affidavit of Assessee and Mr. Amrat Lalwani, Ld. CA.
The Ld. D.R. on the contrary refuted the claim of the assessee by submitting that assessee has failed to substantiate the delay, occurred in filing of appeal, by plausible reason.
Considering the aforesaid reasons demonstrated by the assessee as bonafide and unintentional and plausible, this court is inclined to condone the delay occurred in filing of 1st appeal, however subject to deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other head” within 30 days from the date of this order. Thus, the delay occurred before the Ld. Commissioner in filing of appeal before him, is condoned, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- as directed above.
Coming to the merits of the case, as the Ld. Commissioner has decided the appeal on the point of limitation and dismissed the same in limine for want of limitation, therefore this court is inclined to direct the Ld. Commissioner to decide the appeal on merit. Consequently, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2025.