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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 576/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN ( (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 50-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to bonafide conduct and lack of negligence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, represented by the legal heir of the deceased, filed an appeal with a delay of 50 days. The delay was attributed to issues with receiving the order, an incorrect email address being used for communication, and the legal heir's lack of access to the income tax portal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal constitutes a 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18/09/2025

ORDER

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15, raising following grounds:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in dismissing the appeal against the assessment order dated 23.12.2019 for AY2014-15 made on Late Mrs.Madhuri Kirti Lapasia (Legal heir Mr.Uday lapasiya).

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erre the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erre dismissing the appeal and there by upholding the additions dismissing the appeal and there by upholding the additions dismissing the appeal and there by upholding the additions aggregating to Rs.1,00,90,686/ aggregating to Rs.1,00,90,686/- as per the assessment order as per the assessment order dated 23.12.2019 dated 23.12.2019 for AY2014-15 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 50 days in fili there is a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal. He referred to the ng the appeal. He referred to the copy of the application for condonation of the delay and the affidavit copy of the application for condonation of the delay and the affidavit copy of the application for condonation of the delay and the affidavit filed by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee stands filed by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee stands filed by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee stands demised and being represented demised and being represented by legal heir. The Ld. counsel legal heir. The Ld. counsel submitted that the delay if a submitted that the delay if any is on account of reason that the ny is on account of reason that the legal heir of the assessee did not get any physical copy of impugned legal heir of the assessee did not get any physical copy legal heir of the assessee did not get any physical copy order and had no knowledge about knowledge about order of the Ld. CIT(A) till the Ld. CIT(A) till 14.01.2025. The Ld. counsel submitted that 14.01.2025. The Ld. counsel submitted that order was sent on order was sent on e- mail ID taxation@unkhona.c taxation@unkhona.com to which the legal heir had no legal heir had no access and the copy transmitted to the e and the copy transmitted to the e-mail address mentioned mentioned in the Form No. 35, was tagged tagged carbon copy(CC) and the same and the same landed in spam and went un went un-noticed. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was noticed. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was downloaded by the tax consulta downloaded by the tax consultant while viewing the tax portal of the nt while viewing the tax portal of the assessee’s legal heir and immediately thereafter same was assessee’s legal heir and immediately thereafter same was assessee’s legal heir and immediately thereafter same was downloaded on 14/01/2025 on 14/01/2025 and appeal was filed on 27/01/2025 on 27/01/2025. The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee was prevented by way The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee was prevented by way The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee was prevented by way ‘sufficient cause’ and therefore, and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal might the delay in filing the appeal might be condoned.

3.

On the contrary, the Ld. Department On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) al Representative (DR) objected for condonation of delay. objected for condonation of delay.

4.

We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record the relevant materials on record. The short issue that arises of . The short issue that arises of consideration is whether the delay in filing the present appeal consideration is whether the delay in filing the present appeal consideration is whether the delay in filing the present appeal occasioned on account of forwarding of the e on account of forwarding of the e-mail to address other mail to address other than the address notified in Form No. 35 than the address notified in Form No. 35, constitutes sufficient constitutes sufficient cause within the merit of s cause within the merit of section 5 of limitation Act, 1963 r.w. ection 5 of limitation Act, 1963 r.w. provisions of the Income rovisions of the Income-tax Act,1961.

4.1 It is a well-settled principle of law that the expression settled principle of law that the expression settled principle of law that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction, so as to “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction, so as to “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction, so as to advance the cause of substantial justice. The Hon’ble Supreme advance the cause of substantial justice. The Hon advance the cause of substantial justice. The Hon Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has enunciated that when substantial justice and technical (SC) has enunciated that when substantial justice and technical (SC) has enunciated that when substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, the cause of substantial justice must considerations are in conflict, the cause of substantial justice must considerations are in conflict, the cause of substantial justice must prevail, for no party can be permitted prevail, for no party can be permitted to claim a vested right in the to claim a vested right in the perpetuation of injustice merely by reason of a non perpetuation of injustice merely by reason of a non-deliberate delay deliberate delay.

4.2 In the case before us, the assessee has explained that In the case before us, the assessee has explained that In the case before us, the assessee has explained that the delay in filing of appeal happened due to delay in filing of appeal happened due to (i) non-receipt receipt/service of the physical copy of the order f the order; (ii) forwarding of order forwarding of order on the e-mail ID other than the ID wh ID other than the ID which was provided in Form No. 35,. ich was provided in Form No. 35,. (iii) The legal heir of the deceased assessee legal heir of the deceased assessee had no access to the access to the income-tax portal. The explanation so furnished is consistent, duly supported The explanation so furnished is consistent, duly supported The explanation so furnished is consistent, duly supported by an affidavit, and does n an affidavit, and does not disclose any element of mala ot disclose any element of malafides or culpable negligence. On culpable negligence. On the contrary, it manifests bona the contrary, it manifests bonafide conduct on the part of the assessee. on the part of the assessee.

4.3 In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the assessee was In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the assessee was In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient c prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the ause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 50 days in filing the days in filing the appeal stands condoned, and the appeal is admitted for appeal stands condoned, and the appeal is admitted for appeal stands condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. adjudication on merits.

5.

We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on the merit of the issue raised on the grounds. material on the merit of the issue raised on the grounds. material on the merit of the issue raised on the grounds. We find that despite numerous no We find that despite numerous notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) tices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) as mentioned in para 1.1 of the impugned order mentioned in para 1.1 of the impugned order, no compliance was no compliance was made on the part of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee it was made on the part of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee it was made on the part of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee it was explained that due to explained that due to service of the notices on the e of the notices on the e-mail ID other than ID mentioned in the form No. 35, the than ID mentioned in the form No. 35, the legal heir of legal heir of assessee could not represent before the Ld. CI could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. counsel T(A). The Ld. counsel submitted that assessee is willing to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that assessee is willing to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that assessee is willing to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and file the submission in respect of grounds raised. Accordingly, in and file the submission in respect of grounds raised. Accordingly, in and file the submission in respect of grounds raised. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for (A) and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The assessee is it liberty to raise any addition ground if so assessee. The assessee is it liberty to raise any addition ground if so assessee. The assessee is it liberty to raise any addition ground if so required.

6.

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.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 22/09/2025. /09/2025.

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →