SMT SHRISHTI GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(3)(5), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -10, Delhi [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: 1) The Id CIT(A) erred in considering date of service of assessment order on 7/12/2018 to consider for limitation period for filing of apple.

2) The Ld CI filing of appea
3) The Ld C appeal has co the ITAct, 196
4) The Ld CIT unexplained i
PRAYERS.
1) Delay in fil
2) Addition of The appellant any ground o
2. We have heard the relevant material was completed unde
Income-tax Act, 196
07.12.2018. The ass challenging the said the impugned order, that it had been file application for condo
The learned CIT(A) r been filed on 15.01.2
appeal, computed fro
06.01.2019. Observin delay in column no.
for the same, the le
ITA

IT(A) erred not condoning delay of eight al.
CIT(A) by dismissing appeal and not a onfirmed addition of Rs 5,06,747 made u
61. T(A) erred in wrongly confirming sale of s investment u/s 69 of the Act.
ing of appeal be condoned.
f Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be d t creaves leave to add, modify and or w of appeal.
rival submissions of the parti on record. In the present case, er Section 144 read with Sect
61 (hereinafter referred to as essee preferred an appeal befo assessment. However, the learn
, declined to admit the appeal ed belatedly by 8 days, and f onation of delay had been filed b recorded that the appeal in Fo
2019, whereas the limitation per om the date of service of the or ng that the assessee neither a 14 of Form No. 35 nor offered a arned CIT(A) declined to enter
Smt. Shrishti Gupta
2
A No. 3163/MUM/2025
days in admitting u/s 69 of hares as deleted.
withdraw ies and perused the assessment tion 147 of the s "the Act") on re the ld CIT(A) ned CIT(A), vide on the ground further, that no by the assessee.
orm No. 35 had riod for filing the rder, expired on admitted to any any explanation rtain the appeal and held that, in the question of condonat the learned CIT(A) pl in Ajay Dabra v. Pya
Financial Commission
Special Land Acquisit that delay can be con and that a litigant wh indulgence as a matt
CIT(A) is reproduced
“2. Decision :-
2.1 As mentio u/s 144 r.w.s filed an appe date of issue delay of 8 da filed within 3
Notice of Dem no. 14 of Form delay in filing any reason fo failed to prov of condonatio treated as def
2.2 There is a the Act. The major or mino the satisfacti appellant hav sufficient cau admission of 2.3 In the ins made by the ITA absence of any cause shown fo tion did not arise. In support of laced reliance upon the decision are Ram (2023), Mahant Bikram ner, Revenue, Punjab and Basa tion Officer, reiterating the well- ndoned only upon sufficient cau ho remains inactive or is neglige ter of right. The relevant observ as under:
- oned at the outset, against the assessme s. 147 of the Act dated 07.12.2018, the a eal vide Form No.35 dated 15.01.2019. F e of the original order it is seen, that th ays in filing appeal. The appeal should ha
0 days i.e. by 06.01.2019 from service of mand as per Section 249(2) of the Act. In m No. 35, the appellant has not admitte g of the appeal and hence has naturally n or delayed filing of appeal. As the appel vide any reason whatsoever, there is no on of delay and hence the appeal ha fective.
a statutory limit prescribed for filing of a invocation of the power to condone an or, in observing such time limit is possible ion of the Addl./JCIT (Appeal) regard ving been unable to file the appeal in tim use. The appellant cannot be entitled to a appeal filed after the time limit.
stant case, the issue of the merits of the a e AO and the grounds of appeal raised
Smt. Shrishti Gupta
3
A No. 3163/MUM/2025
or the delay, the this conclusion, ns of this Court m Dass Chela v.
awaraj & Anr. v.
settled principle use being shown ent cannot claim vation of the Ld.
ent order appellant
From the here is a ave been f Order /
n column ed to any not given llant has question as to be appeal in ny delay, e only on ding the me due to automatic additions d by the appellant cou was addresse
2.4 In the ca
January, 20
“What has to under when s delay.
therefo that th while day’s remain for the been e case of Commi
Others hard encase of case being which therefo must e of Ba
Acquis condon conclud issue c case h the app the “su enough court w neglige facts a not act be a j could b by imp is to b by this case th
023, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held th we have here is a pure civil matter. An be filed within the stipulated period, pr the law. Belated appeals can only be co sufficient reason is shown before the cou
The appellant who seeks condonation ore must explain the delay of each day.
he courts should not be pedantic in their a condoning the delay, and explanation delay should not be taken literally, but ns that there must be a reasonable exp e delay. In the present case, this delay explained to the satisfaction of the cour of Mahant Bikram Dass Chela versus F issioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandiga s (SC) has held “Section 5 of the Limitation task-master and judicial interpretati ed it within a narrow compass. A large e-law has grown around Section 5, its h that one ought not easily to take away has accrued to a party by lapse of time ore a litigant who is not vigilant about h explain every day’s delay
This Court in asawaraj and Another versus Specia ition Officer (SC) while rejecting an applic nation of delay for lack of sufficient ca ded in Paragraph 15 as follows: “The law can be summarized to the effect that as been presented in the court beyond li plicant has to explain the court as to w ufficient cause” which means an adequ h reason which prevented him to appro within limitation. In case a party is fou ent, or for want of bona fide on his pa and circumstances of the case, or found ted diligently or remained inactive, ther justified ground to condone the delay.
be justified in condoning such an inordina posing any condition whatsoever. The ap e decided only within the parameters la s Court in regard to the condonation of d here was no sufficient cause to prevent a Smt. Shrishti Gupta
4
A No. 3163/MUM/2025
of delay ated 31
hat –
n appeal rescribed ondoned, urt for the of delay
It is true approach of each t the fact planation has not rt...In the Financial arh and n Act is a ion has measure highlights y a right and that his rights the case al Land cation for ause has w on the where a imitation, what was uate and oach the nd to be art in the d to have re cannot
No court ate delay pplication aid down delay. In a litigant to app withou whatso the sta utter d
2.10 In view judicial decisi appeal is not not filed wi whatsoever h
In the absenc condoned.
3. In the resu
2.1 Before us, lear there was, in fact, n explained that due to accountant, the asse only around 12th or accountant discovere and forwarded it to reassessment procee
Chartered Accountan
15.01.2019. It is fur the assessee inadve order itself as the da the question regard condonation was fi appreciated, would delay is found to exis
ITA proach the court on time, condoning th ut any justification, putting any c oever, amounts to passing an order in vio atutory provisions and it tantamounts to disregard to the legislature.”
of the facts as discussed hereinabove ions on the matter of delay in filing appe t admitted for adjudication as it is dela ithin the time limit provided and n has been provided by the appellant for th ce of any cause for the delay, the same c lt, the appeal is dismissed as not admitte rned counsel for the assessee no intentional delay in filing the o incorrect email communication essee came to know of the as r 13th January, 2019, when th ed the order at the earlier bus o the assessee. On coming t edings, the assessee promptly nt, and the appeal was filed w rther submitted that while filin rtently entered the date of th ate of service, and therefore an ding delay. As a result, no led, although the factual cir show that there was sufficien st.
Smt. Shrishti Gupta
5
A No. 3163/MUM/2025
he delay condition olation of showing and the eals, this ayed and o cause he delay.
annot be ed.”
submitted that e appeal. It was n and change of ssessment order he newly joined siness premises to know of the y contacted her without delay on ng Form No. 35, he reassessment nswered "No" to application for rcumstances, if nt cause, if any The relevant submis
“7. It was on the office loca sent it to th
January, 201
reassessment
8. On such kn
Accountant f
Applicant too order before t to be filed on 9. Out of ab knowledge
January, 20
mentioned t date of serv be a delay of fact, for this r against the qu
2.2 In light of the principles of natural deserves to be re adjudication. The le available records and date on which the as assessee. If it is foun of limitation, the lear assessee and affor application for condo including an affidav learned CIT(A) shall a ITA ssion of the assessee is reprodu nly when the accountant of the new occu ated at 18, Santogen House, found the o he Applicant sometime around 12th
19, that the Applicant came to know t order had been passed in her case.
nowledge, the Applicant contacted her C for further course of action. On adv k immediate steps to file an appeal aga the Ld. CIT(A) and, accordingly, the appe
15.01.2019. bundant caution, even though the of the Applicant was 12th or 1
019, while filing Form 35, the Ap the date of the reassessment order ice of the order. As a result, there app f 8 days in filing the appeal before the C reason, in Form 35, the Applicant has st uestion 'Whether there is delay in filing a above explanation, and having l justice, we are of the view t emanded to the learned CI earned CIT(A) shall examine, o d the submissions of the asses ssessment order came to the k nd that the appeal was filed bey rned CIT(A) shall communicate rd an opportunity to file a onation of delay supported by re vit. Upon such application b adjudicate the issue of condona
Smt. Shrishti Gupta
6
A No. 3163/MUM/2025
ced as under:
upants of rder and or 13th that the Chartered vise, the ainst the eal came date of 13th of pplicant r as the peared to CIT (A). In tated 'No'
appeal'.”
g regard to the that the matter
IT(A) for fresh on the basis of ssee, the actual knowledge of the yond the period the same to the an appropriate elevant material, being filed, the ation of delay in accordance with law on merits, should the express no opinion stage, and the sam learned CIT(A) on rem grounds raised by the 3. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (RAHUL CHA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 30/07/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

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

////

ITA and thereafter proceed to dispo e delay be condoned. We make on the sufficiency of the expl me shall be independently ex mand. In view of the foregoing e assessee are allowed for statis the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 30/0
/-
S
AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Smt. Shrishti Gupta
7
A No. 3163/MUM/2025
ose of the appeal it clear that we lanation at this xamined by the discussion, the stical purposes.
is allowed for 07/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai