ANITA BHANUDAS BHOIR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(1) KALYAN, MUMBAI

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds:

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [here-in-after referred to as Ld. CIT (Appeals)] erred in not condoning the referred to as Ld. CIT (Appeals)] erred in not condoning the referred to as Ld. CIT (Appeals)] erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. delay in filing the appeal.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the additions made by Ld. AO in the as considering the additions made by Ld. AO in the as considering the additions made by Ld. AO in the assessment order. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the additions made by Ld. AO u/s 56(2)(x) the additions made by Ld. AO u/s 56(2)(x) is bad bad in law.

2. The material facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant filed a The material facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant filed a The material facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant filed a return of income on 11.02.2019, declaring a total income at return of income on 11.02.2019, declaring a total inc return of income on 11.02.2019, declaring a total inc ₹5,24,860/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny, and in . The said return was selected for scrutiny, and in . The said return was selected for scrutiny, and in pursuance thereof, statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, pursuance thereof, statutory notices under the Income pursuance thereof, statutory notices under the Income 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and duly served upon the 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and duly served upon the 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and duly served upon the assessee. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of the said assessee. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of assessee. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of notices. Consequently, the Assessing Officer, in exercise of powers notices. Consequently, the Assessing Officer, in exercise of powers notices. Consequently, the Assessing Officer, in exercise of powers under Section 144 of the Act, proceeded to pass an ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act, proceeded to pass an under Section 144 of the Act, proceeded to pass an assessment order on 29.01.2021, determining the tax liability on assessment order on 29.01.2021, determining the tax liability on assessment order on 29.01.2021, determining the tax liability on the basis of best judgment assessment. Aggrieved by the aforesaid the basis of best judgment assessment. Aggrieved by th the basis of best judgment assessment. Aggrieved by th order, the assessee filed the prescribed appeal fee for filing appeal, order, the assessee filed the prescribed appeal fee for filing appeal, order, the assessee filed the prescribed appeal fee for filing appeal, within the period stipulated under the Act. However, the within the period stipulated under the Act. However, the within the period stipulated under the Act. However, the memorandum of appeal was filed only on 20.04.2023, resulting in a memorandum of appeal was filed only on 20.04.2023, resulting in a memorandum of appeal was filed only on 20.04.2023, resulting in a period extended by delay of 314 days, even after excluding the grace delay of 314 days, even after excluding the grace period extended by Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters affected by the COVID-19 Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters affected by the COVID Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters affected by the COVID pandemic. In view of the substantial delay and in the absence of a pandemic. In view of the substantial delay and in the absence of a pandemic. In view of the substantial delay and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to admit the satisfactory explanation, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to admit the satisfactory explanation, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to admit the appeal. The assessee, in proceedings before the L appeal. The assessee, in proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), sought d. CIT(A), sought to justify the delay on the ground that she was in possession of two to justify the delay on the ground that she was in possession of two to justify the delay on the ground that she was in possession of two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), which led to certain technical Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), which led to certain technical Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), which led to certain technical difficulties in filing the appeal. It was further submitted that the difficulties in filing the appeal. It was further submitted that the difficulties in filing the appeal. It was further submitted that the assessee had been actively correspo assessee had been actively corresponding with the Income nding with the Income-tax Authorities for the cancellation of one PAN and subsequently with Authorities for the cancellation of one PAN and subsequently with Authorities for the cancellation of one PAN and subsequently with the Aadhaar Authorities for linking the remaining PAN with her the Aadhaar Authorities for linking the remaining PAN with her the Aadhaar Authorities for linking the remaining PAN with her Aadhaar. It was contended that those procedural impediments Aadhaar. It was contended that those procedural impediments Aadhaar. It was contended that those procedural impediments resulted in the delay in filing the appea resulted in the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Ld. CIT(A), l. However, the Ld. CIT(A), not finding merit in the explanation so tendered, rejected the appeal not finding merit in the explanation so tendered, rejected the appeal not finding merit in the explanation so tendered, rejected the appeal as un-admitted. Aggrieved by the said order, the Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has Aggrieved by the said order, the approached the Tribunal, assailing the rejection of the appeal and approached the Tribunal, assailing the rejection of the appeal and approached the Tribunal, assailing the rejection of the appeal and raising the grounds as set forth hereinabove. raising the grounds as set forth hereinabove.

2.1 Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted an Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted an Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted an affidavit along with an application seeking condonation of delay in affidavit along with an application seeking condonation of delay in affidavit along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Referring to Form No. 35, g the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Referring to Form No. 35, g the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Referring to Form No. 35, learned counsel contended that the appeal fee had been duly paid learned counsel contended that the appeal fee had been duly paid learned counsel contended that the appeal fee had been duly paid within the prescribed limitation period, i.e., on 28.05.2021. within the prescribed limitation period, i.e., on 28.05.2021. within the prescribed limitation period, i.e., on 28.05.2021. However, due to the existence of two Permanent Account Numbers However, due to the existence of two Permanent Account Numbers However, due to the existence of two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), the appeal could not be uploaded on the Income s), the appeal could not be uploaded on the Income-tax portal. s), the appeal could not be uploaded on the Income The assessee had been in continuous correspondence with the The assessee had been in continuous correspondence with the The assessee had been in continuous correspondence with the relevant Income-tax Authorities, pursuant to which the old PAN tax Authorities, pursuant to which the old PAN tax Authorities, pursuant to which the old PAN (‘BGCPB6822Q’) was cancelled, and the valid PAN (‘AHLPB8013E’) (‘BGCPB6822Q’) was cancelled, and the valid PAN (‘AHLPB8013E’) (‘BGCPB6822Q’) was cancelled, and the valid PAN (‘AHLPB8013E’) was subsequently linked with the Aadhaar. It was only after the sequently linked with the Aadhaar. It was only after the sequently linked with the Aadhaar. It was only after the completion of this process that the assessee was able to file the completion of this process that the assessee was able to file the completion of this process that the assessee was able to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Learned counsel for the assessee appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Learned counsel for the assessee appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid circumstances constitute a sufficient submitted that the aforesaid circumstances constitute a sufficient submitted that the aforesaid circumstances constitute a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Conversely, the learned se for the delay in filing the appeal. Conversely, the learned se for the delay in filing the appeal. Conversely, the learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) opposed the request for Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) opposed the request for Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) opposed the request for condonation, contending that the delay was attributable to the condonation, contending that the delay was attributable to the condonation, contending that the delay was attributable to the assessee’s own fault in possessing two PANs. The Ld. DR further assessee’s own fault in possessing two PANs. The Ld. DR further assessee’s own fault in possessing two PANs. The Ld. DR further pointed out that, in the affidavit, the assessee had incorrectly ed out that, in the affidavit, the assessee had incorrectly ed out that, in the affidavit, the assessee had incorrectly attributed the issuance of the second PAN to the Department. attributed the issuance of the second PAN to the Department attributed the issuance of the second PAN to the Department

Order pronounced in the o Order pronounced in the open Court.