UDAY LAPSIA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MRS MADHURI KIRTI LAPSIA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI

On the the lea dismis aggreg dated 2 2. At the outset, th there is a delay of 5 copy of the applicatio filed by the assess demised and being submitted that the d legal heir of the asses order and had no k 14.01.2025. The Ld. mail ID taxation@unk and the copy transm Form No. 35, was ta spam and went un downloaded by the ta assessee’s legal he downloaded on 14/0 The Ld. counsel subm ‘sufficient cause’ and be condoned. 3. On the contrar objected for condonat Uday Lapsia IT e facts and in the circumstances of the cas arned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe sing the appeal and there by upholding gating to Rs.1,00,90,686/- as per the asse 23.12.2019 for AY2014-15 he Ld. counsel for the assessee 50 days in filing the appeal. He on for condonation of the delay a ee. He submitted that the a represented by legal heir. Th delay if any is on account of r ssee did not get any physical co knowledge about order of the counsel submitted that order khona.com to which the legal hei mitted to the e-mail address m agged carbon copy(CC) and the n-noticed. The order of the L ax consultant while viewing the eir and immediately thereaft 01/2025 and appeal was filed o mitted that the assessee was pr d therefore, the delay in filing th ry, the Ld. Departmental Repr tion of delay. Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Madhuri Kirti Lapsia 2 TA No. 576/MUM/2025 se and in law, eals), erred in the additions essment order e submitted that e referred to the and the affidavit assessee stands he Ld. counsel reason that the opy of impugned e Ld. CIT(A) till was sent on e- ir had no access mentioned in the same landed in Ld. CIT(A) was tax portal of the fter same was on 27/01/2025. revented by way he appeal might resentative (DR)

We have heard the relevant materia consideration is wh occasioned on accou than the address no cause within the m provisions of the Inco 4.1 It is a well-se “sufficient cause” sh advance the cause Court in Collector, La (SC) has enunciated considerations are in prevail, for no party perpetuation of injus 4.2 In the case bef delay in filing of appe the physical copy of ID other than the ID legal heir of the dece portal. The explanati by an affidavit, and Uday Lapsia IT rival submissions of the parti als on record. The short issue ether the delay in filing the nt of forwarding of the e-mail t otified in Form No. 35, consti erit of section 5 of limitation ome-tax Act,1961. ettled principle of law that hould receive a liberal constru of substantial justice. The Ho and Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (198 d that when substantial justice n conflict, the cause of substant can be permitted to claim a ves tice merely by reason of a non-d fore us, the assessee has exp eal happened due to (i) non-rec the order; (ii) forwarding of orde D which was provided in Form N ased assessee had no access to ion so furnished is consistent, does not disclose any element Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Madhuri Kirti Lapsia 3 TA No. 576/MUM/2025 ies and perused e that arises of present appeal to address other itutes sufficient Act, 1963 r.w. the expression uction, so as to on’ble Supreme 87) 167 ITR 471 e and technical tial justice must sted right in the deliberate delay. plained that the ceipt/service of er on the e-mail No. 35,. (iii) The o the income-tax duly supported of malafides or culpable negligence. on the part of the ass 4.3 In view of the fo prevented by suffici prescribed time. Acc appeal stands con adjudication on merit 5. We have heard r relevant material on We find that despite mentioned in para 1 made on the part of explained that due t than ID mentioned i could not represen submitted that asses and file the submissi the interest of substa the order of the Ld. deciding afresh after assessee. The assesse required. Uday Lapsia IT On the contrary, it manifests b sessee. oregoing, we are satisfied that th ient cause from filing the app cordingly, the delay of 50 day ndoned, and the appeal is ts. rival submission of the parties a the merit of the issue raised o numerous notices issued by th 1.1 of the impugned order, no the assessee. On behalf of the o service of the notices on the in the form No. 35, the legal h nt before the Ld. CIT(A). Th ssee is willing to appear before ion in respect of grounds raised antial justice, we feel it appropr CIT(A) and restore the matter r taking into consideration sub ee is it liberty to raise any addit Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Madhuri Kirti Lapsia 4 TA No. 576/MUM/2025 onafide conduct he assessee was peal within the ys in filing the admitted for and perused the on the grounds. he Ld. CIT(A) as compliance was assessee it was e-mail ID other heir of assessee he Ld. counsel e the Ld. CIT(A) . Accordingly, in riate to set aside back to him for bmission of the tion ground if so 6. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 22/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.