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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1609/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 October 2025AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's lack of education and unfamiliarity with e-communication as sufficient cause, and referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds of appeal, and the assessment order was also passed ex parte. Consequently, none of the issues raised by the assessee had been adjudicated on merits. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the entire matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was also directed to cooperate fully. The Tribunal clarified that this decision was not an expression on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated by the AO independently. The grounds of appeal and the appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Saleha Khatoon Zafaruddin Ansari, filed an appeal against the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147 read with 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The AO had completed the reassessment ex parte, assessing total income at Rs. 1,56,24,150/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to non-compliance, despite multiple opportunities. The present appeal before the ITAT was delayed by 212 days. The assessee attributed the delay to being uneducated, not conversant with English, and unfamiliar with handling emails, stating she only filed the appeal after being informed by a consultant.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and facts by adding the entire consideration of Rs. 1,55,62,500/- from the sale of a flat to the assessee's income, without allowing the benefit of the cost of acquisition and indexation (mixed law and fact, concerning computation of capital gains under the Act). 2. Whether the learned Assessing Officer erred in not providing the appellant with a proper opportunity of being heard (procedural issue). 3. Whether the learned Assessing Officer erred in levying interest and penalties under various sections of the Income-tax Act (mixed law and fact, concerning the validity of additions and consequential levies). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional but due to her lack of education and unfamiliarity with e-communication. She relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others (167 ITR 471) for condoning the delay. The assessee also raised grounds regarding the addition of the full sale consideration without cost of acquisition and indexation, lack of proper opportunity, and incorrect levy of interest and penalties. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya,AR
For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 29.09.2025Pronounced: 28.10.2025

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →