What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons to be genuine and unintentional, despite not being supported by documents. The appeal was remanded to the Commissioner for a decision on merit.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the Commissioner due to a delay of 220 days in filing. The assessee claimed lack of internet familiarity in Goa prevented timely retrieval of assessment orders. The Revenue argued the assessee acted negligently.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay of 220 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner was liable to be condoned due to the assessee's lack of internet familiarity and other peculiar circumstances.

Maria Joann Norohna, Goa vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI BR BASKARAN & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Ld. D.R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.11.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld.

Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2023-24.

In the instant case, the Assessee through the Ld. Counsel Mr. M. Subramaniam, advocate by filing an adjournment application on dated 19.03.2025 had sought for adjournment due to personal difficulty of the Ld. Counsel, however, we observe that the Ld. Commissioner has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine and for want of delay, by not substantiating the delay of 220 days in filing of the appeal before him and therefore we are inclined to decide this appeal.

It appears from the impugned order, the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner has claimed that the Assessee resides in Goa and not much acquainted with the use of the internet and therefore she could not retrieve the assessment orders passed, which resulted into delay in filing of the instant appeal and therefore delay of 220 days may be condoned, as the Assessee has good case in facts and in law.

On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the said claim of the Assessee by submitted that the Assessee has acted negligently and therefore she does not deserve any leniency.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Though the reasons stated by the Assessee are not supported by relevant documents, however, the claim of the Assessee specifically in the absence of material contrary, appears to be genuine, bonafide and unintentional.

Hence, considering the duration of delay and the reason stated by the Assessee and the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the Assessee has lodged a claim for Long Term Capital Gain, which was disallowed by the AO, we are inclined to condone the delay under consideration. Thus, the same is condoned. Resultantly, the appeal is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, subject to deposit of Rs.1100/- in the Revenue Department under “other head”, suffice to say reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2025.

MARIA JOANN NOROHNA,GOA vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments