Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a housewife, failed to update her address on the income tax portal and was unaware of assessment proceedings. She learned about the assessment order only through her banker and subsequently filed an appeal beyond the prescribed time limit.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal due to her unawareness of the proceedings, and therefore, the delay should be condoned. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the appeal and decide on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by sufficient cause, and whether the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits after declining to condone the delay.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 249(2), 249(3), 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
ORDER
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2019-2020, raising following grounds:
Ground I A. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, ignoring the bona fide for the delay in filing the appeal, ignoring the bona fide for the delay in filing the appeal, ignoring the bona fide for delay in filing and merits of the case is bad at law. filing and merits of the case is bad at law. B. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant B. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant B. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant i. was a housewife and not a Income tax return filer with income . was a housewife and not a Income tax return filer with income . was a housewife and not a Income tax return filer with income below taxable limit. below taxable limit. ii. She has shifted from the address registered in PAN 15 ii. She has shifted from the address registered in PAN 15 ii. She has shifted from the address registered in PAN 15 years back and did not update the site since she was a non filer. back and did not update the site since she was a non filer. back and did not update the site since she was a non filer. iii. She became aware of the order through her banker who has She became aware of the order through her banker who has She became aware of the order through her banker who has shared her email id. shared her email id. iv. Thus, the assessee was not granted proper opportunity and iv. Thus, the assessee was not granted proper opportunity and iv. Thus, the assessee was not granted proper opportunity and not adjudicated on merits is bad at law and a not adjudicated on merits is bad at law and against the principle gainst the principle of natural justice. of natural justice. C. The appellant therefore prays that order passed without giving C. The appellant therefore prays that order passed without giving C. The appellant therefore prays that order passed without giving sufficient opportunity to substantiate the claims is bad at law sufficient opportunity to substantiate the claims is bad at law sufficient opportunity to substantiate the claims is bad at law and the said order be annulled. and the said order be annulled. GROUND II A. On the facts and circumstances of the ca A. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the se, and in Law, the learned learned learned ITO ITO ITO Ward Ward Ward 4(1) 4(1) 4(1) Thane Thane Thane ("AO") ("AO") ("AO") erred erred erred adding adding adding Rs.1,00,00,000/ Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 69A and taxed U/s 115BBE of the Act, as u/s 69A and taxed U/s 115BBE of the Act, as unexplained investments in Fixed Deposits. unexplained investments in Fixed Deposits. B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO failed to appreciate failed to appreciate that: 1. The Assessee has made a FD of Rs.50,00,000/ 1. The Assessee has made a FD of Rs.50,00,000/- only, which only, which was reported twice and addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/ was reported twice and addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was made by AO. ii. The said deposit was out of the money transferred from her ii. The said deposit was out of the money transferred from her ii. The said deposit was out of the money transferred from her husband from his known source of income via banking channe husband from his known source of income via banking channe husband from his known source of income via banking channels. The appellant's explanations submitted before the CITA were not The appellant's explanations submitted before the CITA were not The appellant's explanations submitted before the CITA were not considered. C. C. C. The The The appellant, appellant, appellant, therefore, therefore, therefore, prays prays prays that that that addition addition addition of of of Rs.1,00,00,000/ Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money may u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money may please be deleted. please be deleted. GROUND III A. On the facts and circumstances A. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the of the case, and in Law, the learned ITO Ward 4(1) Thane ("AO") erred adding Rs.88,656/ learned ITO Ward 4(1) Thane ("AO") erred adding Rs.88,656/ learned ITO Ward 4(1) Thane ("AO") erred adding Rs.88,656/- being interest on Fixed Deposits. being interest on Fixed Deposits. B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO failed to appreciate that: failed to appreciate that: i. The Assessee could not file the return i. The Assessee could not file the return of income due to reasons of income due to reasons mentioned in ground no 1. mentioned in ground no 1. ii. The Interest earned is below the threshold limit of taxation. ii. The Interest earned is below the threshold limit of taxation. ii. The Interest earned is below the threshold limit of taxation. iii. The appellant's explanations submitted before the CITA were iii. The appellant's explanations submitted before the CITA were iii. The appellant's explanations submitted before the CITA were not considered. not considered. The addition is not made under any sections which attracts The addition is not made under any sections which attracts The addition is not made under any sections which attracts Section 115BBE. iv. Section 115BBE. iv. V. The tax is calculated U/s 115BBE on the income without V. The tax is calculated U/s 115BBE on the income without V. The tax is calculated U/s 115BBE on the income without mentioning in the order. mentioning in the order. C. The appellant, therefore, prays that addition of Rs.88,656/ C. The appellant, therefore, prays that addition of Rs.88,656/ C. The appellant, therefore, prays that addition of Rs.88,656/- of bank Interest taxed U/s115BBE may please bank Interest taxed U/s115BBE may please be deleted. deleted.
We have heard the rival submi We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material ssions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that, in the present case, the Ld. available on record. It is observed that, in the present case, the Ld. available on record. It is observed that, in the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The relevant findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) read as under: relevant findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) read as under: relevant findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) read as under:
3. It is clear from the above that the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 3. It is clear from the above that the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 3. It is clear from the above that the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 was made on 07.03.2024 which got served upon the appellant was made on 07.03.2024 which got served upon the appellant was made on 07.03.2024 which got served upon the appellant on 07.03.2024 but the appeal was filed on 24.09.2024 i.e. on 07.03.2024 but the appeal was filed on 24.09.2024 i.e. on 07.03.2024 but the appeal was filed on 24.09.2024 i.e. beyond prescribed time of 30 days, whereas, the appellant was beyond prescribed time of 30 days, whereas, the appellant was beyond prescribed time of 30 days, whereas, the appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days as provided vide section le appeal within 30 days as provided vide section le appeal within 30 days as provided vide section 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 147 r.w.s 144. The petition of the 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 147 r.w.s 144. The petition of the 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 147 r.w.s 144. The petition of the appellant regarding late filing of appeal is carefully considered appellant regarding late filing of appeal is carefully considered appellant regarding late filing of appeal is carefully considered but is not acceptable on merit as the appellant has itself declared but is not acceptable on merit as the appellant has itself declared but is not acceptable on merit as the appellant has itself declared in form 35 that the order was received on 07.03.2024. The m 35 that the order was received on 07.03.2024. The m 35 that the order was received on 07.03.2024. The appellant also stated in its request petition for delay that the AO appellant also stated in its request petition for delay that the AO appellant also stated in its request petition for delay that the AO might obtain the mail id from bank and sent the notices to the might obtain the mail id from bank and sent the notices to the might obtain the mail id from bank and sent the notices to the mail id in the month of may, but still the appellant took around 5 mail id in the month of may, but still the appellant took around 5 mail id in the month of may, but still the appellant took around 5 months to file the appeal, which shows callous attitude towards to file the appeal, which shows callous attitude towards to file the appeal, which shows callous attitude towards the statutory notices. The appellant did not file any documentary the statutory notices. The appellant did not file any documentary the statutory notices. The appellant did not file any documentary evidence which prevent it from filing the appeal within statutory evidence which prevent it from filing the appeal within statutory evidence which prevent it from filing the appeal within statutory time limits. Therefore, the appellant has not given any sufficient time limits. Therefore, the appellant has not given any sufficient time limits. Therefore, the appellant has not given any sufficient reason which prevented it to file appeal in time. Therefore, the reason which prevented it to file appeal in time. Therefore, the reason which prevented it to file appeal in time. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is without any substance in it. contention of the appellant is without any substance in it. contention of the appellant is without any substance in it. It should be noted that the legislature has provided time limits for It should be noted that the legislature has provided time limits for It should be noted that the legislature has provided time limits for certain obligations under the Act and these time limits have certain obligations under the Act and these time limits have certain obligations under the Act and these time limits have to be observed. It is compliance requirements imposed by law in the observed. It is compliance requirements imposed by law in the observed. It is compliance requirements imposed by law in the interest of proper regulation of the Act. Hon'ble High Court of interest of proper regulation of the Act. Hon'ble High Court of interest of proper regulation of the Act. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Lava International Ltd Vs CBDT in Civil writ Delhi in case of Lava International Ltd Vs CBDT in Civil writ Delhi in case of Lava International Ltd Vs CBDT in Civil writ petition No. 8293/2024 dated 30.5.2024 has stated that power petition No. 8293/2024 dated 30.5.2024 has stated that power petition No. 8293/2024 dated 30.5.2024 has stated that power of condonation can be exercised to delay with the extraordinary f condonation can be exercised to delay with the extraordinary f condonation can be exercised to delay with the extraordinary circumstances only which would have led to delay in statutory circumstances only which would have led to delay in statutory circumstances only which would have led to delay in statutory compliance and the same cannot be exercises routinely. In the compliance and the same cannot be exercises routinely. In the compliance and the same cannot be exercises routinely. In the present case, the cause stated by the appellant for delay in filing present case, the cause stated by the appellant for delay in filing present case, the cause stated by the appellant for delay in filing of appeal is not an extraordinary cause and therefore, this is not f appeal is not an extraordinary cause and therefore, this is not f appeal is not an extraordinary cause and therefore, this is not a suitable cause for condoning the delay in filing of appeal. a suitable cause for condoning the delay in filing of appeal. a suitable cause for condoning the delay in filing of appeal. The appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days of the The appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days of the The appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days of the receipt of demand notice. However, the appellant has not done receipt of demand notice. However, the appellant has not done receipt of demand notice. However, the appellant has not done so. Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and therefore, . Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and therefore, . Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and therefore, as provided in the section 249 (3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, I am as provided in the section 249 (3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, I am as provided in the section 249 (3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the specified period. Hence, since presenting the appeal within the specified period. Hence, since presenting the appeal within the specified period. Hence, since, appeal was not filed within prescribed time as provided in the appeal was not filed within prescribed time as provided in the appeal was not filed within prescribed time as provided in the section 249(2) of the IT Act, the same is section 249(2) of the IT Act, the same is not admitted. admitted.
Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit and submitted that the assessee, a housewife, had shifted affidavit and submitted that the assessee, a housewife, had shifted affidavit and submitted that the assessee, a housewife, had shifted from the address earlier furnished to the Income he address earlier furnished to the Income-tax Department tax Department nearly 15 years ago and inadvertently failed to update the same on nearly 15 years ago and inadvertently failed to update the same on nearly 15 years ago and inadvertently failed to update the same on the income-tax portal. Consequently, she remained unaware of the tax portal. Consequently, she remained unaware of the tax portal. Consequently, she remained unaware of the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. It was only when her proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. It was only when h proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. It was only when h banker shared her e banker shared her e-mail ID with the Department, and recovery mail ID with the Department, and recovery proceedings were pursued, that she became aware of the proceedings were pursued, that she became aware of the proceedings were pursued, that she became aware of the assessment order. The assessee thereafter promptly engaged a assessment order. The assessee thereafter promptly engaged a assessment order. The assessee thereafter promptly engaged a professional and filed the appeal without further delay. professional and filed the appeal without further delay. professional and filed the appeal without further delay.
We have given o We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival ur thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and examined the record relevant to the assessee’s submissions and examined the record relevant to the assessee’s submissions and examined the record relevant to the assessee’s request for condonation of delay. Section 249(2) of the Act request for condonation of delay. Section 249(2) of the Act request for condonation of delay. Section 249(2) of the Act prescribes a limitation of 30 days for filing an appeal before the Ld. prescribes a limitation of 30 days for filing an appeal before the Ld. prescribes a limitation of 30 days for filing an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, unde CIT(A). However, under section 249(3), the Ld. CIT(A) is empowered r section 249(3), the Ld. CIT(A) is empowered to condone the delay if “sufficient cause” is demonstrated. to condone the delay if “sufficient cause” is demonstrated. to condone the delay if “sufficient cause” is demonstrated.
4.1 The expression “sufficient cause” has been interpreted by the The expression “sufficient cause” has been interpreted by the The expression “sufficient cause” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), to be elastic and capable of liberal 71 (SC), to be elastic and capable of liberal 71 (SC), to be elastic and capable of liberal interpretation in order to advance substantial justice. The settled interpretation in order to advance substantial justice. The settled interpretation in order to advance substantial justice. The settled law is that the length of delay is not of primary relevance; what is of law is that the length of delay is not of primary relevance; what is of law is that the length of delay is not of primary relevance; what is of significance is whether the cause shown is bona fide and sufficient significance is whether the cause shown is bona fide and sufficient significance is whether the cause shown is bona fide and sufficient to explain the delay. Courts have consistently held that explain the delay. Courts have consistently held that explain the delay. Courts have consistently held that technicalities should not thwart adjudication on merits, in the technicalities should not thwart adjudication on merits, in the technicalities should not thwart adjudication on merits, in the absence of mala fides or deliberate neglect. At the same time, the absence of mala fides or deliberate neglect. At the same time, the absence of mala fides or deliberate neglect. At the same time, the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, upon the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, upon the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, upon the appellant demonstrating cogent and bona fide reasons for the delay. pellant demonstrating cogent and bona fide reasons for the delay. pellant demonstrating cogent and bona fide reasons for the delay.
4.2 In the present case, the assessee has satisfactorily explained In the present case, the assessee has satisfactorily explained In the present case, the assessee has satisfactorily explained that she had shifted from the address available with the that she had shifted from the address available with the that she had shifted from the address available with the Department years earlier and remained unaware of the proceedings Department years earlier and remained unaware of the proceedings Department years earlier and remained unaware of the proceedings due to non-updation of particulars on the portal. The explanation updation of particulars on the portal. The explanation updation of particulars on the portal. The explanation appears bona fide, and no material has been brought on record by appears bona fide, and no material has been brought on record by appears bona fide, and no material has been brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the assessee’s assertions. In these the Revenue to controvert the assessee’s assertions. In these the Revenue to controvert the assessee’s assertions. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the assessee was circumstances, we are of the considered view that the assessee w circumstances, we are of the considered view that the assessee w prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. We accordingly condone the delay in filing the prescribed period. We accordingly condone the delay in filing the prescribed period. We accordingly condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
Since the appeal was dismissed in limine on the ground of Since the appeal was dismissed in limine on the ground of Since the appeal was dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation, the Ld. CIT(A) has n limitation, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits. ot adjudicated the issues on merits. We therefore direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the We therefore direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the We therefore direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law. appeal, and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law. appeal, and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.