SALEHA KHATOON ZAFARUDDIN ANSARI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. The learned assessing officer erred in facts and at law in adding the whole of consideration of sale of flat for Rs. 1,55,62,500/- to the income of the appellant. 2. The learned assessing officer erred in not giving benefit of the cost of acquisition as well as the indexation of the same to the appellant. 3. The learned assessing officer erred in not giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. The learned assessing officer erred in levying interest and penalties under various sections of the income tax act. 3. At the outset, it may be stated here that the instant appeal is delayed by 212 days. Before us, a condonation application alongwith an affidavit has been filed by the assessee stating that she is an uneducated lady and not versed with English language as well as handling emails on her own. She had received notices and order on her e-mail and only after being told by the Consultant, appeal was immediately filed. 4. Brief facts are that as per the information available with the Department, proceeding u/s 147 of the Act was initiated. However, on account of non compliance by the assessee, reassessment u/s 144/147 was completed assessing the total income at Rs. 1,56,24,150/-.Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed appeal with ld.CIT(A) who noted that during appellate proceedings, a number of opportunities were provided to her, but they remained un-complied with. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal in limine.

On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the present appeal was not intentional but due to lack of proper communication mainly on account of the assessee, being an illiterate lady was not conversant with e-communication mode and could not evaluate the implications thereof. We do appreciate that dismissal of the appeal on account of delay would cause genuine hardship to her and also would amount to taking away a substantive right of the assessee. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon’ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late……..Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated….Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period…. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs

We further notice that since the appellate order has been passed dismissing the appeal in limine on account of non-compliance by the assessee, none of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal involved have been adjudicated. Consequently, the ld.CIT(A) could not evaluate the points of consideration so as to give his own decision on objective analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Besides, even the assessment order also has been passed ex parte. 7. Considering the entirety of the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of principles of natural justice and fair play, we consider it appropriate to send the matter back to the file of the AO in the light of above discussion, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to advance her arguments and submissions before him so as to provide details in connection with the merits of the case. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order and restore the entire matter back to the ld.AO for passing the assessment order de novo after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee who is also directed to attend

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/10/2025. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.