PALLAVI SANTOSH BHAVE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 27.09.2024 passed u/s 250
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A) Mumbai, for the A.Y
2013-14. 2. At the outset, we notice that there is delay in filing the present appeal and in this regard Ld. AR has filed an 2
Pallavi Santosh Bhave, Mumbai.

affidavit of the assessee, wherein it has been mention that physical copy of the impugned order was never served upon the assessee and the email containing the impugned orders was noticed after few weeks. Because of this reason the appeal could not be filed within limitation.
3. After having heard the counsels for both the parties on the request for seeking condonation of delay. we found that the facts contained in the affidavit has not been rebutted by the respondent by filing any counter affidavit. Therefore, considering this fact and also keeping in view the principles laid down by honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.,
[1987] AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of none deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred, therefore we condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently, the present appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.
4. As per the facts of the present case, the assessee had not filed her return of income for the year under consideration. However, it was noticed by the revenue authorities that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 13,60,590/-. Consequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the act.
5. Since the assessee could not response to the notices during the assessment proceedings, therefore, assessment

3
Pallavi Santosh Bhave, Mumbai.

was framed by making additions u/s 69A of the act which was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).
6. At the very outset, we noticed that no concrete evidence were filed by the assessee during the assessment or appellate proceedings. In this regard, our attention was drawn to the fact that assessee had filed an adjournment application before Ld. CIT(A) so as to enable the assessee to file the required documents but Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee without granting adjournment. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee for filing/submitting the required documents.
7. Whereas on the country, it was argued by the department that proper and sufficient opportunities were granted to the assessee at every stage of hearing but in spite of that assessee failed to submit concrete evidences
8. Be that as it may, in our view, the interest of justice would be met in case the issues between the parties are decide on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Therefore, considering the above factual and legal position, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

4
Pallavi Santosh Bhave, Mumbai.

JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai
Dated: 12/03/2025

KRK, Sr PS
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order

(Asstt.