SANGEETA MADHUSUDAN BHUSRATH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEESangeetha Madhusudan Bhusrath, Kalphavruksh heights, 502, C Wing, 5th Floor, Near Lalgi Pada Police Station, Kandivali link Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400 067 PAN: ALOPB2682E vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai Piramal Chamber, Dr S.S. Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai APPELLANT
Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2012-
13, date of order 20/03/2023. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Wared-22(3)(2), Mumbai (in short, the “Ld. AO”), passed under section 144 of the Act, date of order 31/03/2015. 3. The Registry has reported that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 729 days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit dated 31.08.2025, which is placed in the paper book at APB pages 3 to 14. In the said affidavit, the assessee has explained that due to a medical emergency, she was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time, which resulted in the delay.
The Ld. DR, though heard, has not raised any serious objection to the explanation tendered by the assessee.
In our considered view, the explanation advanced by the assessee constitutes sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 729 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Accordingly, the appeal is admitted and taken up for adjudication on merits.
We find that the assessee has duly explained that, owing to a medical emergency, she was prevented from appearing before the revenue authorities. Consequently, both the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to pass their respective orders ex parte. The Ld. AR has, therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Ld. DR, while supporting the orders of the revenue authorities, did not raise any serious objection to the prayer made by the Ld. AR. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that there is a sufficient cause with the assessee for not appearing before the revenue authorities, which led to passing their orders exparte, without considering the merit of the case. We restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO. The assessee is directed to furnish the proper documents before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO is directed to consider all documentary evidence and submissions to be filed by the assessee and hearing the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as not to cause prejudice in the proceedings before the assessing authority. It is further directed that the assessee shall diligently cooperate in the set-aside proceedings to facilitate expeditious disposal of the set aside assessment.
In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No.3496/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th day of September 2025. (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 04/09/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to:
अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.