KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2015-16
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 24.07.2022 was barred by limitation since it was beyond the surviving time limit as held by th
Supreme Cou appellant's ca issued under not covered by 3. On the fac
ITO, Ward 26
148A(d) and appreciating same in view thereunder
Assessment order and t proceeding as 4. On the fac
CIT (A) / Na condoning the 5. On the fac
Ld. Assessing
97,00,750 u appellant wa immovable p appellant ha purchased in 6. Without p circumstances
97,00,750 ma appellant wa immovable p agreement t subsequently
2. We have heard r relevant material on delay of more than 2
counsel for the asses
ITA he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Union o v Bansal.
cts and circumstances of the case and in fficer has erred in applying the directio urt as issued in the case of Ashish Agarw ase without appreciating the fact that r Section 148 on 29.06.2021 for AY 201
y the provisions of TOLA.
cts and circumstances of the case and in 6(2)(1) , Mumbai has erred in passing the o d also issuing the notice u/s. 148
that he was not having the juri ictio w of Section 151A and the notificatio notifying e-Assessment of Income
Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the notice as well as the entire as s null and void.
cts and circumstances of the case and in ational Faceless Appeal Centre has err e delay of 108 days in filing the appeal.
cts and circumstances of the case and in g Officer has erred in adding an amoun nder section 69 of the Act alleging s unable to prove the source of investm property, without appreciating the fact ad no knowledge of any such prope her name.
prejudice to the above and on the f s of the case and in law, the additi ade under section 69 of the Act alleging as unable to prove the source of investm property ought to have been deleted towards purchase of the same h cancelled.
rival submission of the parties a record. At the outset, we find
56 days in filing this appeal be ssee referred to the affidavit of th
Krina Mahesh Maru
2
A No. 6476/MUM/2024
of India &
n law, the ons of the wal to the the notice
15-16 was n law, the order u/s.
8 without on for the on issued
Escaping g the said ssessment n law, the red in not n law, the nt of of Rs that the ent in an t that the erty being facts and ion of Rs g that the ment in an since the has been and perused the that there is a fore us. The Ld.
he assessee and submitted that due t to the divorce procee managing everything not be filed within t affidavit is reproduce
“3. I hereby s residing sep divorced vide
13m January
4. In the m initiated in my
2015-16 by is 29th June, 20
5. All the noti proceedings w ex-husband.
details after t proceedings w
6. I learnt th order to verify of an immov
Habitats, Bal
7. During the submitted be knowledge of all the docum husband. Acc and obtain th same at that p
8. In the mea r.w.s. 144 of amount of Rs section 69 of 9. I hereby su emotional tur
ITA o her separation from her husb dings, she was going through d g on her own and therefore, th the limitation period. The relev ed as under:
submit that my ex-husband and myself h arately since June 2020 and we go e order of Family Court Mumbai at Band y, 2022. Copy of the decree is attached.
meantime, the reassessment proceedin y case for AY ssuing a notice under section 148 of the 021. ices issued during the course of the reas were sent to the mobile number and ema
It was only after I changed my comm the divorce, I came to know that the reas were underway in my case.
hat the assessment in my case was reo y the source of investment made towards able property bearing Flat No. B1703,
Rajeshwar Road, Mulund West.
e course of the assessment proceeding efore the Ld. Assessing Officer that I f any such property which was purchased ments related to the same would be wi cordingly, I was trying my level best to he necessary documents but I could not o point in time, antime, the reassessment order under se f the Act was passed on 08.05.2023 w s 97,00,750 was added to my total inco the Act.
ubmit that all these years I have been b rmoil and mental stress and I was e
Krina Mahesh Maru
3
A No. 6476/MUM/2024
and consequent difficult period of he appeal could vant part of the have been ot legally dra dated ngs were Act dated ssessment il id of my munication ssessment opened in s purchase
Tirumala gs, I had I had no d and that th my ex- reach him obtain the ection 147
wherein an ome under battling an even more tensed becau sudden I had independent o my own. As a on simultaneo filing the appe
10. During th issued a notic wherein I wa delay in filing
11. In respo submission d same. Along w appeal and st
12. Thereafte it was inform the appeal w response in su
13. I was ver the fact that response to a belief that th merits. Theref the notice dat
14. I hereby notice dated submit the re
It is submitted the time whe under section 15. It is sub position to ke the order pas all these year
16. The emo uncertainty h
However, slo started to get
I realized tha the delay was ITA use of the assessment proceeding. Furthe d to take up a huge responsibility of on my personal front and managing ever a result, there were many things which w ously in my life due to which there was a eal before the Hon'ble NFAC he course of the First Appellate Proceedin ce under section 250 of the Act dated 16
as given an opportunity to furnish the r g the before the NFAC.
onse to the said notice, I filed my r dated 17.10.2023 explaining the reaso with the said letter I had submitted the g tatement of facts.
r, vide notice under section 250 dated 0
med to me that HARKISHN AHARthe dela was condoned and I was asked to s upport of the grounds of appeal raised by ry much relieved that the delay was cond
I had already submitted the facts of th a previous hearing notice, I was of the he same would suffice for deciding the fore, no fresh submission was made in re ted 01.11.2023. submit that subsequently I was issue
15.01.2024 wherein I was once again asons for condoning the delay in filing th d that I came to know about the said noti en I discovered that NFAC has passed n 250 in my case.
mitted before Your Honours that I was eep a track of the First Appellate Proceed ssed under section 250 of the Act for the rs have been very tough for me.
otional turmoil coupled with mental st ad made it very difficult for me to cope up owly and gradually with the passage my things in order and it was at that po t the NFAC has passed an order in my ca s not condoned.
Krina Mahesh Maru
4
A No. 6476/MUM/2024
er, all of a becoming rything on were going a delay in ngs, I was 6.10.2023
reason for reply vide on for the grounds of 1.11.2023
ay in filing ubmit my y me.
doned and he case in e bonafide matter on esponse to d another asked to he appeal.
ice only at an order s not in a dings and e fact that tress and p with life.
of time I int in time ase where
Further, th of the period handled by ex decree it w indemnify an partnership f was a partne belief that the care by my ex pertaining to family which further course 18. Thus, ther This affidavit appeal before 3.1 In view of the opinion that there limitation period for appeal for adjudicatio 4. On perusal of th CIT(A) has dismissed sufficient reason for of the Ld. CIT(A) is re “There exists inordinate de Accordingly, Accordingly I dismiss this a In view of inadmissible. 4.1 In the affidav mentioned the circum ITA here was an understanding that issues a d when my marriage was surviving x-husband and his family. As can be see was even agreed that my ex-husban ny legal dues or debts arising in future firm viz. 'Steelfinity Homeware', wherein er. Considering the same I was of the e ongoing proceedings would be handled a x-husband and his family. Also, all the d said immovable were with by ex-husban even the more made it difficult for me to d e of action. re is a delay of 264 days in filing the app t is being made to justify delay in fil e the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal.” reasons cited by the assessee is a sufficient cause in non filing the appeal. Accordingly on. he order of the Ld. CIT(A), we f d the appeal of the assessee on t delay in filing the appeal. The eproduced as under : s no sufficient or good reason for c lays of more than 108 days delay in filin this appeal is dismissed as barred by I decline to condone the delay of 108 d appeal of the appellant as barred by limita the above discussion appeal is ren Hence stand dismissed.” vit filed before us, the asse mstances under which there wa Krina Mahesh Maru 5 A No. 6476/MUM/2024 arising out would be n from the nd would out of the n earlier I e bonafide and taken documents nd and his decide the peal. ling of an , we are of the n-complying the y, we admit the find that the Ld. the ground of no relevant finding condoning ng appeal. limitation. days, and ation. ndered as essee has also as a delay of 108
days in filing the app the assessee are bona the appeal before the in filing the appeal back to him for decid on merit after provid assessee. The groun statistical purposes.
5. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 26/03/2025
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 peal before the Ld. CIT(A). The r afide and sufficiently explain th e Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we con before the Ld. CIT(A) and res ding the issue in dispute involve ing adequate opportunity of bei nds of appeal of the assessee the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 26/0
/-
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Krina Mahesh Maru
6
A No. 6476/MUM/2024
reasons cited by he delay in filing ndone the delay tore the matter ed in the appeal ing heard to the are allowed for is allowed for 03/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai