HANSA PRABHUDAS HARSORA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 06.02.2025, made an addition of Rs. 86,13,460/- under section 69A of the Act, treating the amount pertaining to time deposits with UCO Bank and Bank of Baroda as unexplained money. Being aggrieved, the Assessee challenged the said addition by filing an appeal before the ld. Commissioner. However, there was a delay of 204 days in filing the appeal. At serial No. 14 of Form No. 35, the Assessee had stated that there was no delay in filing the appeal, which, according to the ld. Commissioner, was incorrect. Observing that the Assessee had neither furnished any reasons explaining the delay nor filed any supporting documentary evidence, the ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the instant appeal. At the outset, the Assessee submitted that she had filed an application dated 20.08.2025 before the ld. Commissioner, explaining the reasons for the delay and seeking its condonation. However, the ld. Commissioner had, inadvertently or otherwise, failed to consider the said application. The Assessee, therefore, requested that an opportunity be granted to her by remanding the matter to the file of the ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

We observe that, although the Assessee relies upon an application dated 20.08.2025 seeking condonation of delay, however no acknowledgment evidencing its filing before the ld. Commissioner has been furnished. In the absence of such acknowledgment, it cannot be concluded that the said application was made available to the ld. Commissioner. Further, the impugned order contains no reference to the said application. Consequently, we are unable to entertain the plea for condonation of delay merely

Be that as it may, the Assessee has submitted that she is a widow and was dependent upon her husband, who owned an industrial undertaking. Her husband passed away during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving her alone, as they had no children. She has further submitted that she received Rs. 60 lakh in her savings bank account from the sale of the factory and made fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 86 lakh with UCO Bank and Bank of Baroda. According to the Assessee, she was unaware of the email address furnished at the time of applying for PAN and, consequently, of the notices sent by the Department. She has also submitted that she used her mobile phone only for voice calls and not for online purposes, and had only recently started using WhatsApp.

We also note that the ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal in limine, without adjudicating the issues on merits. In response to a query raised by the Bench, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the incorrect response at serial No. 14 of Form No. 35 had been given owing to erroneous advice or inadvertence. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the file of the ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision on the question of limitation, after affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Assessee is directed to file an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit and other relevant documentary evidence, before the ld. Commissioner to enable a just and proper decision on the question of limitation.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.