LATA PRAKASH MARADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

1 But no docume the above claim was the said amount in t Act dated 29.11. 09.03.2018upheld th the Income-Tax Appe order of the lower au file of AO for limited to whether the sale 37,00,000/- and cre Rs. 4,00,000/- was o order passed in com restricted the additio 4,00,000/- in his o 143(3) r.w.s 254 of 271(1)(c) of the Act fo Subsequently, the ld explanation/reply for assessee filed a retu thereof. The assessee explained f Jewellery (Rs. 4,28,000/-) of cash from bank (Rs. 1,00,000/ h balance (Rs. 3,00,000/-) ut of her pin money. ntary evidence or any material filed and therefore, the ld AO m the assessment order passed u/ 2016. The Ld.CIT(A) vide he addition made by the AO. On ellate Tribunal( in short the ‘ITA uthorities and restored the mat purpose of verification from sa e consideration for sale of fla dit of capital gain declared by over and above Rs. 37,00,000/-. mpliance to the order of the IT on to Rs. 10,96,000/- by grant rder dated 29.09.2021 passed the Act and initiated penalty or furnishing inaccurate particu d AO issued show-cause notice r levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) urn submission dated 26.10.20 Lata Prakash Maradia 3 d the source as /-) to substantiate made addition for /s. 143(3) of the order dated n further appeal AT’) setaside the tter back to the ale agreement as t was only Rs. the assessee of . In assessment TAT, the ld AO ting relief of Rs d under section proceeding u/s ulars of income. e for furnishing of the Act. The 021. Thereafter, the matter of levying unit and accordingly occasions i.e. on 2 remained non-compli AO considered subm AO the assessee fa addition sustained b discharging the onus on the part of the furnishing inaccurate Rs. 10,96,000/- at t which was work out Ld. CIT(A) noted th scheme,2024 for the 10,96,000/-. The Ld 23.04.2021 determin was issued but issue file of the ld AO and a 2. The learned Co that there was a del support thereof, re condonation of delay assessee as well as b It was explained that g penalty was assigned to the F y again show-cause notices were 5.11.2021 and 21.12.2021 bu ied on the part of the assessee, mission dated 26.10.2021. Acco ailed to offer an explanation by the Assessing officer. The in s was on the assessee but in vie assessee, the ld AO levied t e particulars of income in respe the rate of 100% of tax sough t to be Rs. 3,38,664/-. On furt hat the assessee opted for Vi e settlement of dispute for the d. CIT(A) further noted that Fo ning balance demand payable b e of verification of challan was appeal was allowed. ounsel appearing for the asse ay of 781 days in filing the pre eliance was placed on the y accompanied by an affidavit by the concerned Chartered Ac t upon receipt of the order of th Lata Prakash Maradia 4 Faceless Penalty e issued on two ut said notices however, the ld ording to the ld relating to the nitial burden of ew of the failure the penalty for ect of addition of ht to be evaded, ther appeal, the ivad-se-Vishwas addition of Rs. rm no. 3 dated by the assessee restored to the essee submitted esent appeal. In application for t sworn by the countancy firm. e learned CIT(A) through e-mail, the m a Chartered Account concerned proceeded resignation from the assessee’s appeal. Th a subsequent stage engaged to look after 2.1. It was further su by the assessee’s unavailability of the beyond the assessee these circumstances assessee from filing limitation. 2.2. We find merit in supported the ple uncontroverted, inas the Revenue. It is se the other side, the accepted as true. 2.3. The coordinate B v. JCIT [2005] 92 ITD any counter affidavi matter for filing of appeal had be tant of the said firm. However, d on maternity leave and ther e firm without taking steps f he assessee became aware of th e, when another Chartered A the matter. ubmitted that the delay also sto family health problems and concerned Chartered Account e’s control. According to the le constituted a “sufficient cause” g the appeal within the presc the explanation so tendered. T a with affidavit evidence w much as no counter affidavit h ettled law that in the absence o averments made in the affid Bench of this Tribunal in Bajaj D 11 (Mum) has observed that in it by the Revenue, delay in fi Lata Prakash Maradia 5 een entrusted to the professional reafter tendered for filing of the his lapse only at Accountant was od compounded the prolonged tant for reasons earned Counsel, ” preventing the cribed period of he assessee has which remains has been filed by of rebuttal from davit are to be j Hindustan Ltd. n the absence of iling the appeal deserves to be condo Sandhya Rani Sarka that non-filing of a condonation of delay delay. The Hon’ble Ap [2006] 280 ITR 357 “sufficient cause” substantial justice, w Concord of India Insu 507 (SC), it was he discernible, legal adv sufficient cause for co 2.4. The object of lim to ensure expeditiou present case, there is dilatory intent on the considered view that from filing the appea delay in filing the a admitted for adjudica 3. Coming to Grou submitted that the from penalty under compliance with the oned. Similarly, the Hon’ble Su ar v. Sudha Rani Debi [1978] AIR affidavit in opposition to an y may itself constitute a grou pex Court in Sreenivas Charitab 7 (SC) has further held that must be liberally construe which is of paramount importan urance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi eld that unless mala fides or vice honestly sought and acted u ondonation. mitation is not to defeat substan us conduct of proceedings. In t s nothing on record to suggest a e part of the assessee. We, ther the assessee was prevented by al within the limitation period. A appeal is condoned. The appea ation on merits. und No. 1, the learned Counsel assessee was otherwise eligibl r section 271(1)(c) of the A Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 202 Lata Prakash Maradia 6 upreme Court in R 537 (SC) held application for und to condone ble Trust v. DCIT the expression d to advance nce. Likewise, in [1979] 180 ITR recklessness is upon constitutes ntial justice but the facts of the any mala fide or refore, are of the sufficient cause Accordingly, the al is, therefore, for the assessee le for immunity Act, subject to 24. However, the assessee failed to dep within the stipulate contended that the l the file of the Assessi without adjudicatin submission of the le the impugned order hearing to the asses that the matter deser 3.1. Having consider plea of the assessee additions made in as Scheme, 2024 but d scheme, the immun under section 271(1 learned CIT(A) ought than remitting the m challan. 3.2. Further, it is ev did not provide suffic the impugned order. reasonable opportun adverse view is taken posit the tax determined under t ed period. In such circums learned CIT(A) erred in restorin ing Officer merely for verification ng the issue on merits. It earned Counsel that the learned r without affording adequate see. On this short ground also rves to be remanded for fresh co red the rival submissions, we fi e. Since the assessee opted fo ssessment proceedings under Vi did not deposit the tax determ nity provided under the schem )(c) could not be extended. Co t to have decided the issue on matter to the Assessing Officer fo vident from the record that the cient opportunity to the assessee . Principles of natural justice m nity of hearing must be affor n. Lata Prakash Maradia 7 the said scheme tances, it was ng the matter to n of the challan, was also the d CIT(A) passed opportunity of o, it was prayed onsideration. ind merit in the or settlement of ivad se Vishwas mined under the me from penalty onsequently, the n merits rather or verification of e learned CIT(A) e before passing mandate that a ded before any 3.3. In view of the a order of the learned direction to decide th granting adequate op merits. 3.4. Accordingly, Gro for statistical purpose 4. Since we alread the remaining groun at this stage. 5. In the result, a purposes. Order pronoun (SANDEEP G JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 26/08/2025 DishaRaut, Stenographer above, we deem it appropriate t CIT(A) and restore the matter t he issue afresh, in accordance pportunity to the assessee to pre ound No. 1 of the assessee’s ap es. dy restored the appeal to the fil ds on merit are not required to appeal of the assessee is allowe ced in the open Court on 26/0 /- GOSAIN) (OM PRAK MEMBER ACCOUNTA Lata Prakash Maradia 8 to set aside the to his file with a e with law, after esent its case on ppeal is allowed le to Ld. CIT(A), o be adjudicated ed for statistical 08/2025. d/- KASH KANT) ANT MEMBER