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

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

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 a delay in filin
2. That on th
Ld. Commis considering order.
2.1 That on the additions
2. The material fac return of income o
₹5,24,860/-. The sa pursuance thereof,
1961 (in short ‘the assessee. However, th notices. Consequentl under Section 144
assessment order on the basis of best jud order, the assessee f within the period memorandum of app delay of 314 days, ev
Hon’ble Supreme C pandemic. In view of satisfactory explana appeal. The assessee to justify the delay on ITA as Ld. CIT (Appeals)] erred in not con ng the appeal.
he facts and in the circumstances of th ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals) er the additions made by Ld. AO in the a the facts and in the circumstances o s made by Ld. AO u/s 56(2)(x) is bad cts, briefly stated, are that the a on 11.02.2019, declaring a t aid return was selected for sc statutory notices under the I
Act’) were issued and duly se he assessee failed to respond to ly, the Assessing Officer, in exe of the Act, proceeded to pa n 29.01.2021, determining the dgment assessment. Aggrieved b filed the prescribed appeal fee f stipulated under the Act.
eal was filed only on 20.04.202
ven after excluding the grace per
Court in matters affected by f the substantial delay and in t ation, the Ld. CIT(A) declined e, in proceedings before the Ld n the ground that she was in po
Anita Bhanudas Bhoir
2
A No. 6882/MUM/2024
ndoning the he case, the rred in not assessment of the case, d in law.
appellant filed a otal income at crutiny, and in Income-tax Act, erved upon the o any of the said ercise of powers ass an ex-parte tax liability on by the aforesaid for filing appeal,
However, the 3, resulting in a riod extended by the COVID-19
the absence of a d to admit the . CIT(A), sought ossession of two

Permanent Account N difficulties in filing t assessee had been Authorities for the c the Aadhaar Author
Aadhaar. It was co resulted in the delay not finding merit in t as un-admitted. Agg approached the Tribu raising the grounds a 2.1 Before us, learn affidavit along with a filing the appeal bef learned counsel cont within the prescrib
However, due to the (PANs), the appeal co
The assessee had b relevant Income-tax
(‘BGCPB6822Q’) was was subsequently lin completion of this p appeal before the L
ITA

Numbers (PANs), which led to c the appeal. It was further sub actively corresponding with ancellation of one PAN and sub rities for linking the remaining ontended that those procedura y in filing the appeal. However, the explanation so tendered, reje grieved by the said order, th unal, assailing the rejection of as set forth hereinabove.
ned counsel for the assessee ha an application seeking condona fore the Ld. CIT(A). Referring t tended that the appeal fee had bed limitation period, i.e., o existence of two Permanent Ac ould not be uploaded on the Inc been in continuous correspon
Authorities, pursuant to whic s cancelled, and the valid PAN nked with the Aadhaar. It was process that the assessee was Ld. CIT(A). Learned counsel fo
Anita Bhanudas Bhoir
3
A No. 6882/MUM/2024
certain technical bmitted that the the Income-tax bsequently with g PAN with her al impediments the Ld. CIT(A), ected the appeal e assessee has the appeal and as submitted an ation of delay in o Form No. 35, been duly paid on 28.05.2021. ccount Numbers come-tax portal.
dence with the ch the old PAN
(‘AHLPB8013E’) s only after the able to file the or the assessee submitted that the a cause for the delay
Departmental Repre condonation, conten assessee’s own fault pointed out that, in attributed the issuan
3. After considerin the record, we note prescribed limitation intention to comply filing the appeal is at existence of two PAN the appeal on the I explained the steps t the remaining PAN w circumstances provid the appeal. Consequ impugned order of th adjudication on its m assessee is allowed. S to the file of the Ld.
ground No. 2 and 2.1
ITA aforesaid circumstances constit in filing the appeal. Converse esentative (Ld. DR) opposed t nding that the delay was attr t in possessing two PANs. The n the affidavit, the assessee nce of the second PAN to the Dep ng the submissions of the partie e that the appeal fee was p n period, thereby demonstrating with the applicable time limit ttributable to a technical issue a Ns, which prevented the electron
Income-tax Portal. The appella taken to cancel one PAN and su with Aadhaar. In our considered de a bona fide justification for th uently, we condone the delay he Ld. CIT(A), and remit the m merits. The ground No. 1 of th
Since we have already restored
. CIT(A), we are not required t
1 challenging the addition on me
Anita Bhanudas Bhoir
4
A No. 6882/MUM/2024
tute a sufficient ely, the learned the request for ibutable to the Ld. DR further had incorrectly partment.
es and perusing paid within the g the appellant’s ts. The delay in arising from the nic uploading of ant has further ubsequently link d opinion, these he delay in filing y, set aside the matter to him for he appeal of the the matter back o adjudicate on erit.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ITA the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court.
/-
S
AJAGOPAL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Anita Bhanudas Bhoir
5
A No. 6882/MUM/2024
is allowed for KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai