MR. SUSHMA JAIRAJ BHANDARI ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O 25(3)(4), MUMBAI

The sole grievance of the assessee in the appeal is with regard to dismissal of its appeal in limine on the ground of delay.

Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file any return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act.

Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned first appellate authority. However, there was delay of 123 days in filing the appeal. Though, the assessee explained the cause of delay, however, it did not found favour with learned first appellate authority. Ultimately, he dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine without condoning delay.

Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee went through serious personal problems during the period, which resulted in belated filing of appeal before first appellate authority. Drawing our attention to the Affidavit of the assessee, he submitted that there was serious health issues relating to both the assessee and her husband. In support of such contention, the assessee furnished documentary evidences.

Having considered rival submissions and gone through the contents of the Affidavit and other relevant materials on record, we are of the view that there was learned first appellate authority. We must observe, by not filing the appeal in time, the assessee would not have gained any benefit. Rather, the assessee had put herself at risk of the appeal not getting decided on merits and the sword of the addition made and demand created hanging on her head. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that learned first appellate authority should not have allowed himself to be influenced by technicalities. Rather, he should have done well to condone the delay and decided the appeal on merits. In view of the afore-said, we restore the matter back to the file of learned first appellate authority with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Billaiya) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 28.02.2025 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,