NITIKA RASHMI JHAVERI,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINA.Ys: 2012-13
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. From the records, I noticed that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation and consequently while dismissing the application for condonation of delay, the appeal was also dismissed.
2
Nitika Rashmi Jhaveri., Mumbai.
We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
From the records, we noticed that assessee has filed a detailed explanation thereby explaining the reason for seeking condonation of delay and for non compliance before the CIT(A).
Considering the entire factual position as explained before me to the effect that the assessee is non-resident Indian and During the period, when assessment order was passed in her case, the assessee was not having any access to her Indian mobile number and e-mail jhaveri1963 @ gmail.com. In fact, the assessee was not able to get/receive any updates or communications regarding the ongoing assessment proceedings. Thereafter, upon access to her registered email id, the assessee came to know about the assessment proceedings and the consequential demand only on 31st December 2020. Therefore, keeping in 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 my view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance.
3
Nitika Rashmi Jhaveri., Mumbai.
Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
Therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal before
Ld. CIT(A).
Since I have already condoned the delay, therefore the matter is restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to assessee as the matter was not adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) on merits therefore matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Subject to imposition of cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, I 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.
4
Nitika Rashmi Jhaveri., Mumbai.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/11/2025 (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Mumbai:
Dated: 13/11/2025
KRK, Sr. PS.
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order
(Asstt.