← Back to search

REKHABEN SURESH SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF
ITA 6855/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 July 20254 pages

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Nara, Ld. A.R.
For Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr. D.R.
Hearing: 12.06.2025Pronounced: 28.07.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In this case the assessment order was passed on 26.11.2019
u/s 144 of the Act against which the Assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner who vide impugned order ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine as time barred by observing and holding as under:
Ms. Rekhaben Suresh Sanghvi

“ There is a delay of 1055 days in filing of first appeal before him and the Assessee has failed to provide any appealing reason or supporting evidence to justify a delay over 1000
days. The reasons provided are general and do not constitute a “sufficient cause” as required u/s 249(3) of the Act.”

3.

This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that the assessment order was passed on 26.11.2010 and therefore the Assessee was supposed to file first appeal within one month i.e. on or before 25th of December 2019 but the appeal was filed on 15.11.2022 and therefore the Ld. Commissioner construed the delay as 1055 days.

4.

Admittedly, Covid-19 was started in March, 2020 which remained until May-June 2022 and therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as the entire nation was on hold during that time, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of suo-moto Writ Petition (c) No.3 OF 2020 vide order dated 10.01.2022 in Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, has excluded the time period i.e. 15th March 2020 to 28th February 2022 for computing the time limit in filing of appropriate proceedings including appeal before the Appellate Authority and thus the period can be concluded as under:

Date of assessment order
26.11.2019
Actual delay if any First appeal was to be filed on or before
25.12.2019

Hon’ble Supreme Court has exempted the period upto
15th March 2020 to 28th
February 2022

The Assessee ultimately filed the appeal on 15.11.2022
Ms. Rekhaben Suresh Sanghvi

3
Delay occurred started before Covid-19
25-12-2019
to 14-03-2020

80 days
Period excluded by Hon’ble Apex Court
21.03.2020
to 22.07.2022

Time started from 23-
07- 2022 as per Hon’ble
Apex Court Judgment
23-07-2022
onwards and therefore the appeal was supposed to be filed on or before 22-08-
2022
and thereafter delay started and ended on 15-11-2022
and thus delay would be 84 days
Thus total delay would be 80+84 = 164days

5.

May be due to oversight or inadvertently, the Ld. Commissioner failed to take cognizance of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case. Thus the delay can be computed as 164 days only. Thus, considering reasons for delay as explained by the Assessee by submitting “that she being an uneducated, unfamiliar with computers and hence was unaware of the electronic notices issued by the Department, further, the Assessee has also changed her residence and therefore she could not receive physical notices and even some disputes were going on with previous consultant, who was handling the case, which also resulted in delay in filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner”, as bonafide, unintentional and genuine, the delay of 164 days in filling of first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, is condoned and consequently the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice to say, by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Ms. Rekhaben Suresh Sanghvi

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

* Kishore, Sr. P.S.

Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench

////

By Order

Dy/Asstt.

REKHABEN SURESH SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI | BharatTax