REENA KUMARI,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.902/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Reena Kumari, vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, E 201 Kalpatru Splendour, Kaspate Delhi/Income Tax Officer- Wasti Wakad Pune, Wakad B.O., 2(1), Lucknow Hinjewadi, Pune-411057, Maharashtra, India PAN: CHRPK6864J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Mahendra Kumar, FCA Revenue by: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR Date of hearing: 02.03.2026 Date of pronouncement: 14.05.2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act on 27.11.2025, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine, which had been filed against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 for the assessment year 2015-16 on 25.03.2023. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because the notice u/s 148 issued by the Assessing Officer is illegal. The consequent reassessment framed u/s 147 based on such illegal notice is liable to be quashed. 2 Because the CIT (A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the first appeal under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellate order passed by CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi is against the principle of natural justice and liable to be set aside. 3. Because the CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal and not deleting the addition of Rs. 70,75,115/- under the provisions of section 69C on account of making expenditure in purchasing a property ignoring the facts of the case 1

ITA No. 902/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Reena Kumari wherein the investment in the property was actually made by the spouse Shri Rahul Singh-PAN-BLQPS9963L of the appellant. The addition of Rs 70,75,115/- u/s 69C is illegal and liable to be deleted. 4. Because the CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal and not deleting the addition of Rs. 70,594/- under the provisions of section 69A on account of unexplained money being commission or brokerage earned by the appellant. The addition of Rs. 70,594/-u/s 69A is contrary to fact, law and against the circumstances of the case and, therefore, liable to be deleted. 5. Any other ground raised at the time of the hearing of the appeal in accordance with the law.” 2. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16 on account of information received that the assessee, who was a non-filer, had invested Rs. 66,74,615/- in purchasing immovable property and received commission or brokerage from M/s Kalpatru Properties Pvt. Ltd., amounting to Rs. 70,594/-. The Assessing Officer issued various notices to her but the assessee did not make compliance. Therefore, he proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144, making an addition of Rs. 71,45,709/- and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on 18.09.2023. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that she was engaged in the business of commission and brokerage income during the year and earned total commission income of Rs. 70,594/- on this account. As regards, the purchase of immovable property for consideration of Rs. 66,74,615/- and payment of stamp duty of Rs.4,00,500/-, it was submitted that the transaction for the purchase of the said property had been undertaken by the spouse of the husband after taking a home loan of Rs. 45,72,000/- and even though the property was in the joint name of the assessee, all repayments of the housing loan were made by the assessee’s husband, Sh. Rahul Singh, who bore PAN No. BLQPS9963L. The ld.

ITA No. 902/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Reena Kumari AO had added the same to her income without considering that the purchase of the property was done by the spouse and the assessee was only a co- borrower and co-owner of the said property. Before the ld. CIT(A), a detailed submission was made in which the details of the payments made to the builder from the bank accounts of the assessee’s husband and from the loan account were submitted. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Shukla vs. Mamta Arora, 2018 DEL 116 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Kalpita Arun Langekar vs. Income Tax Officer (2024) 298 Taxman 626 (Bom)(HC). However, the ld. CIT(A) declined to consider these submissions made by the assessee. He observed that as per Form No. 35, the order appealed against had been passed on 25.03.2022 but the appeal had only been filed on 18.09.2023. Thus, there was a delay of 512 days in the filing of the appeal. He stated that such a long delay had to be explained by, “sufficient cause” but the assessee had not given any good grounds for condonation of delay in column 5.3 of Form No. 35, where she had pleaded that the email address registered on the portal was outdated and not being used by the assessee, resulting her not receiving the notices sent electronically. The messages of the Department were not being received by the assessee as they were going to another number, which was linked to aadhar but not presently in use. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had failed to prove her bonafides in explaining such a long delay and therefore, after citing various case laws, he dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine. 4. The assessee is aggrieved at this in limine disposal of her appeal and has accordingly come before us. Sh. Mahendra Kumar, FCA (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had been unjustified in rejecting the appeal of the assessee in limine, based on incorrect facts. The assessment order in the assessee’s case 3

ITA No. 902/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Reena Kumari had been passed on 25.03.2023 and not 25.03.2022 as assumed by him. Thus, the delay was only of 147 days and not of 512 days as assumed by him. Furthermore, it had been explained during the course of assessment proceedings, that due to the fact that the email addresses that was registered on the portal was an email address which was outdated, the assessee had not received notices sent to her. Furthermore, it had been pointed out that the aadhar of the assessee was linked to another mobile number, which was not in use by the assessee. As a result, the assessee also did not receive messages from the Income Tax Department. It was only after the new phone number was linked to aadhar, that she received messages and became aware of the ongoing assessment and penalty proceedings. For this reason, it was prayed that she could not make compliance during assessment proceedings and that the delay in the filing of the appeal was also occasioned by that. It was submitted that in the given facts of the case where the entire investment in the purchase of the house property had been made by the husband and the assessee’s name had only been incorporated because she was spouse, the facts had not been appreciated and it was therefore prayed, that the matter may kindly be restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for his consideration. When queried about the first round of appeal which challenged the validity of the assessment, the ld. AR submitted that he was not pressing the same. 5. On the other hand, Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) pointed out that it was the assessee’s responsibility to keep her electronic communications in working order and the Department could not be faulted for her failure. It was submitted that due opportunity had been provided to her by the Assessing Officer and the assessee had not complied. The ld. CIT(A) was correct in rejecting the appeal

ITA No. 902/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Reena Kumari as the assessee had not sufficiently explained the delay. Accordingly, he prayed that the assessment order be sustained. 6. We have duly considered the facts of the case and the arguments of both parties. We are unable to agree with the ld. CIT(A) that the reasons cited by the assessee did not constitute sufficient cause to explain the delay in the filing of the appeal. Further, considering the fact that the facts had been placed before him which suggested that the investments in the impugned property had been made by the husband of the assessee out of his own sources of income and a home loan taken by him, the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the entire addition in the hands of the assesee. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we believe it to be in the interest of justice to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of submissions made by the assessee before us. The assessee is hereby directed to make detailed submissions before the Assessing Officer alongwith proof of the same and the Assessing Officer may thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground no. 1 of assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed while the remaining grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Orders pronounced on 14.05.2026 in the open Court. Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14/05/2026 Sh

ITA No. 902/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Reena Kumari Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant – 2. Respondent – 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. CIT, 5. The CIT(A) By order Sr. P.S.