KADAMBINI PANDA,DADAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the instant case, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice dated 19.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act, after obtaining sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–27, Mumbai. The reassessment proceedings culminated in the assessment order dated 09.05.2023

The Assessee challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner. However, the appeal was dismissed in limine on account of a delay of 121 days in filing the appeal. Aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that an application seeking condonation of delay, supported by a duly stamped, signed and notarised affidavit, had been filed before the Ld. Commissioner. It was explained that the assessment order dated 09.05.2023 was communicated through the Assessee’s registered email address, which was not regularly accessed. Upon becoming aware of the order on 05.06.2023, the Assessee sought professional assistance. Sometime was thereafter consumed in understanding the matter, compiling the relevant documents and filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal became barred by limitation.

The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intended to jeopardise the interests of the Revenue. The Assessee had also undertaken to deposit 20% of the disputed tax demand after filing the appeal. Although the application referred to a delay of 120 days, the impugned order records the delay as 121 days. Accordingly, the Assessee prayed that the delay of 121 days be condoned.

The Ld. DR, on the contrary, submitted that the explanation furnished by the Assessee did not constitute sufficient cause and, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner was justified in declining to condone the delay.

We have considered the rival submissions and the explanation furnished by the Assessee. The delay arose principally because the assessment order, though communicated electronically, was not promptly accessed, and further time was consumed in obtaining professional assistance and compiling the relevant documents. The explanation is supported by an affidavit and nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate, mala fide or attributable to culpable negligence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 held that the expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice and that deliberate delay should not be presumed. Thus, considering the explanation in its entirety and respectfully following the aforesaid principles, we are satisfied that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the first appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 121 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner is condoned.

On the merits, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that notice dated 19.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act was issued more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year. However, approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–27, Mumbai, instead of the specified authority prescribed under section 151(ii) of the Act. It was, therefore, contended that the notice and the consequential assessment order are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

We find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, in Alag Property Construction Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., [2025] 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bombay), also considered an identical case concerning A.Y. 2017–18, wherein the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued after the expiry of

In the present case also, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued after the expiry of three years from the end of A.Y. 2017–18, whereas approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–27, Mumbai, who was not the specified authority under section 151(ii) of the Act. Thus, respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we deem it appropriate to quash the notice dated 19.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential assessment order dated 09.05.2023. Thus, the same are quashed.

Since, we have quashed the notice under section 148 of the Act and the consequential assessment order, thus adjudication of the remaining grounds on the merits of the addition has become futile exercise. Accordingly, those grounds are left open.

In the result, the appeal filed by the ASSESSEE is allowed.