RESHMA MOHAMMED ASIM ANSARI,BANDRA EAST vs. ITO-23(3)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LALBAUG

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
07.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds:
“I. Ex-party order
1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the order dated 07.08.2023 as passed by the Ld. NFAC /
appeal on t adjudicate o consideration provisions of 2) On the fac per the law, the appeal e justice.
II. Disallowa
3) That on th
Ld. NFAC /
by adopting valuation au section 50C assessee ob deemed sale reference to determining compute cap
(3) of section capital gain
III. Disallowa
4) That on th
Ld. NFAC /
Rs.43,79,78
new immova been alongw
1/3th of Rs.28,70,00
considering t
2. The brief facts assessee filed her ret income of ₹3,66,180
the assessment was Reshma M
ITA

CIT Appeals is bad in law since it dism the reason of non- prosecution and on the grounds of appeal and the iss n. The said order being in violati f Section 250 and 251 of the Act.
cts and in the circumstances of the ca the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals erred i ex parte in violation of the principle ance u/s 50C of the act:
he facts and the circumstances of the CIT Appeals had erred in compute ca g value of property determined b uthority as deemed sale considerat
C(1) without considering the fact th bjects to adoption of stamp duty e consideration, A.O is duty-bound t
DVO under sub-section (2) of sectio value of property and thereafter p pital gains by following provisions of s n 50C of the act. Therefore the work by the A.O is bad in law.
ance u/s 54 of the act of Rs.43,79,785
he facts and the circumstances of the CIT Appeals had erred in making a 5/- on the basis of the assessee has i able property costing to Rs.82,00,0
with two other co-owners and allo
Rs.86,10,000/- including stamp
0/- deduction under section 54
the actual investment made by the a leading to the present appea turn of income on 31.08.2018, d
0/-. The return was selected fo completed under Section 143(3
Mohammed Asim Ansari
2
A No. 2551/MUM/2025
misses the d does not sues under ion of the ase and as n deciding of natural e case, the apital gain by stamp tion under hat where value as to make a on 50C for proceed to subsection king of the 5/- e case, the addition of invested in 000/- had owed only duty i.e.
4
without assessee.”
al are that the declaring a total or scrutiny, and ) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (herein wherein the Assessi under the head "Long
3. Aggrieved by th appeal before the le
[hereinafter referred of appellate proceed various statutory no the final notice dated absence of any subm appeal and, relying
Bhattachargee v. Stat merely filing an app abandonment. Accor addition made by the finding of the Ld. CIT
“4.1 Consider appeal is cond
5. During the 15.11.2022, 1
25.07.2023 a by 01.08.202
entire appella proceedings d submission in the appellant ground.
5.1 The Hon'b
A.Y. 2002-03
Reshma M
ITA nafter referred to as "the Act") ng Officer made an addition o g-Term Capital Gains".
he assessment order, the assess earned Commissioner of Incom to as "Ld. CIT(A)"]. However, du dings, the assessee failed to otices issued on 15.11.2022, 1
d 25.07.2023. The Ld. CIT(A), missions on merits, proceeded to g upon the decision of this te of Orissa [(1979) 118 ITR 461
eal without pursuing it effectiv rdingly, the appeal was dism e Assessing Officer was confirme
T(A) is reproduced as under:
ring the appellant's request the delay in fi doned and the appeal is admitted.
course of appellate proceedings vide noti
18.07.2023 and the final opportunity was and requested the appellant to file the su
23. However no submissions were made d ate proceedings. The appellant during the did not comply with the notices and hence n support of grounds of appeal. So it is had nothing more to submit except for r bleITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/Chandi/20
3 in the case of M/s Chhabra Land and Mohammed Asim Ansari
3
A No. 2551/MUM/2025
on 16.04.2021, of ₹43,79,785/- see preferred an me-tax (Appeals) uring the course respond to the 8.07.2023, and after noting the o adjudicate the Court in B.N.
(SC)], held that vely amounts to missed, and the ed. The relevant filing of the ices dated s given on ubmission during the e appellate e made no held that raising the 005 for the d Housing

Ltd. after follo case of B.N.
appeal does n pursuing it. K the appeal f merits.
6. In the insta submissions an undisputa more to say in me and base issue on the rightly asses appellant fail made by th hereby confir
4. The assessee th
Tribunal (ITAT) by fil on 06.10.2023. The with the appeal, the a delay supported by affidavit is reproduce
“2. I say th consultant to registered him
Department b
Commissione my tax cons email ID "nm handed over t
3. Further, I s and taking hospitalized
Also, My Hus
Diabetes and Ansari has su ill-health of w the status of Reshma M
ITA owing the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Co
Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) held not mean merely filing of the appeal but Keeping in view of the aforesaid factua filed by the appellant is, therefore, de ance of the case the appellant failed to in support of grounds of appeal, this giv able conclusion that the assessee has go n this regard. I have gone through the rec ed on the record I have decided to adju merits of the case. In the instant case th ssed an income of Rs. 47,45,965/-.
led to substantiate appellant's claim and he Assessing Officer of Rs. 43,79, rmed.”
hereafter approached the Incom ling an appeal on 12.04.2025, w appeal, thus, was delayed by 5
assessee filed an application for a duly sworn affidavit. The r ed as under:
hat I was appointed Shri Farog Husa o look after the income tax proceeding mself on my behalf on the portal of the In by procuring a logging ID and a passw r of Appeal / NFAC order u/s 250 was re ultant Shri Farog husain on 07.08.202
m.associates3463@gmail.com" but same to assessee and did not taken any furthe say that I was suffering from hypertensio regular treatment from R.K.Hospita due to hypertenstion & cardiovascular sban Mr. Mohd Asim Ansari was suffe d Blood pressure and my Granddaughte uffering from Synpneumonic effusion. Du whole family, I could not able to made an e my tax matter. However, I made an enqu
Mohammed Asim Ansari
4
A No. 2551/MUM/2025
ourt in the d that the effectively al position, ecided on make any ves rise to ot nothing cord before dicate the he AO has Since the d addition
,785/- is me Tax Appellate which was due
552 days. Along r condonation of relevant part of ain, a tax who has ncome Tax word. The eceived by 23 by his was not er action.
on disease al. I had r disease.
ering from er Ms Ifra ue to long enquiry on uiry on the status of my appeal had n action to disc appointed a n tax consultan tax counsel p delay of 553 d
4. I say that, due to a lack that my cas consultant bu appeal was d
5. I say that due to circum
4.1 In the affidavit,
Shri Farog Husain, a her behalf and had using his own email under Section 250 o
07.08.2023 by the sa the assessee. The a family members were for various ailmen complications, diabet contributed to her in was only on 04.04.2
been filed. Thereafter immediate steps to e appeal on 12.04.202
she was not conversa
Reshma M
ITA tax matter on 04-04-2025 and learned not been filed against the NFAC order a continue the tax consultant shri Farog hu new tax consultant shri Mohammed Anas nt forwarded the case paper to the tax cou prepared and filed appeal on 12.04.2025
days.
it was the first time I got involved in tax l of clarity on tax laws, I was under the im e was properly represented by the e ut due to some inadvertent events the fil delayed by 553 days delay before ITAT.
the delay was not intentional and the s mstances beyond my control.”
the assessee averred that she h a tax consultant, who was auth registered himself on the Inc
ID. It was further stated that th of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) w aid consultant but was never co assessee further submitted tha e simultaneously undergoing me nts including hypertension, tes, and synpneumonic effusion nability to inquire into the statu
2025 that she discovered the r, she replaced the earlier cons engage new counsel, who then f
5. It was further pleaded by th ant with the intricacies of tax lit
Mohammed Asim Ansari
5
A No. 2551/MUM/2025
d that the and I took usain and s. The new unsel. The 5 after the litigations, mpression earlier tax ling of the same was had engaged one horized to act on ome Tax portal he order passed was received on ommunicated to at she and her edical treatment cardiovascular n, which further us of her case. It appeal had not sultant and took filed the present he assessee that tigation and had genuinely believed th consultant. The de deliberate, but occasi
5
Having conside explanation tendered assessee. It is well accorded to applicati when substantive rig bona fide and not l circumstances narrat the order by her au illness in the family condonation of dela admitted the appeal f
5.1 Further, we fin dismissed essentially the assessee to the n that the said non-com and her lack of know by the failure of her the assessee has dem compliance.
Reshma M
ITA hat her matter was being duly elay, therefore, was neither ioned due to circumstances bey ered the contents of the aff d therein, we find merit in t l settled that liberal constru ions seeking condonation of de ghts are involved and the explan lacking in diligence. In the pr ted by the assessee, including n uthorised representative and th y, constitute a just and suffi ay. Therefore, we condoned for adjudication.
nd that the appeal before the y on account of non-compliance notices issued. The assessee has mpliance too arose due to illne wledge of the pending proceedin consultant to keep her informe monstrated a reasonable cause
Mohammed Asim Ansari
6
A No. 2551/MUM/2025
pursued by her intentional nor yond her control.
fidavit and the the plea of the uction must be lay, particularly nation offered is resent case, the non supplying of he long spell of cient cause for the delay and Ld. CIT(A) was e on the part of s now explained ess in the family ngs, exacerbated ed. In our view, e for such non-

Mohammed Asim Ansari
7
A No. 2551/MUM/2025
cated the matter on made by the ntation. In the to set aside the re the matter to opportunity of n the appeal is sh adjudication, of the addition, ng adjudicated.
is allowed for 07/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Reshma M
ITA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Mohammed Asim Ansari
8
A No. 2551/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai