MALINI SHANKER,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 27.06.2024 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2023-24.

From the records we noticed that there is delay in filing the present appeal, therefore after going through the contents of the application and also hearing Ld. DR and considering the entire factual position as noticed by us and 2 Malini Shanker., Mumbai. also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.

At the very outset, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A), however in this regard it was submitted by Ld. AR that all the documents relied upon by the assessee were duly filed before Ld. CIT(A) as well as AO in response to the notice received from the Ld. CIT(A). However, still Ld. CIT(A) had decided the matter without considering the specific replies and documents filed by the assessee. From the records, we noticed that assessee had already filed copy of letter dated 01.07.2019 which was filed before Ld. CIT(A) along with copy of agreement for sale of flat dated 24.09.2010 and copy of assessee’s bank 3 Malini Shanker., Mumbai. statement dated 06.02.2025. Apart from above assessee placed on record the copy of assessee’s husband bank statement, Form -16 of assessee’s husband, copy of housing loan account statement of assessee’s husband, copy of TDS form 26AS in order to demonstrate that these documents were also filed before Ld. CIT(A). However on going through the records, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has not taken into consideration the above documents relied upon and filed by the assessee and rejected the appeal summarily without deciding the merits of the same. Which in our view is negligence / over sightedness on the part of Ld. CIT(A).