BISHNUPRIYA BIJAYCHANDRA MAHANTY,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Whether, on Learned A.O i section 148A( contravention t Act which bars 148 was Issue that the pres withdrawn/ dr 149 of the Act

Learned CIT 04-10-1974 w avoided

The learned law and on fa 234A of the Inc computed by th under section 1 The appellant s in response to as held by th Rohitkumar Pa interest under the date of issu Bishn e appellant along with her husband an immovable property. d Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe s and in law in sustaining the - under Section 69 of the Income T me as unexplained investment, witho amount represents cumulative payme sment Years pursuant to a duly execu 21.02.2018 for the 2 purchase of learned Commissioner of Income eously aggregated the entire investme ngle Assessment Year, ignoring the a ents and the supporting evidences o trary to the settled principles of la addition untenable and liable to be n the facts and in the circumstances o is justified in law in initiating pro (d) in appellant's case which i to first proviso to sub section 1 of sec s the reopening of assessment for wh d? In view of the above, Appellant bo sent re-assessment proceedings is ropped being time barred in accorda T(A) failed to follow the CBDT instructi with reference to over-pitched asse Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea acts in upholding the levy of interest come Tax Act, 1961, amounting to 26 he Assessing Officer from the due date 139(1) till the date of passing the ass submits that the return in the present a 5 notice issued under section 148, he Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the athak vs. ITO (ITA No. 552/Ahd/202 section 234A, if any, should be restr ue of notice under section 148 and no nupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty 2 nd son towards eals) has erred e addition of Tax Act, 1961, out appreciating ents made over uted Agreement an immovable Tax (Appeals), ent and brought ctual year-wise on record. Such aw and facts, e deleted in its of the case, the oceeding under is passed in ction 149 of the hich notice U/S onafide submits needs to be ance to section ion 4767 dated essment to be ls) has erred in t under section 62,29,015/-, as e of filing return sessment order. The Assessee, a senio suffered the sudden a relevant period. The under:

The E-mail ID husband of the ap the Income Tax e-f technology, had re communications.

The appellan person and not c Bishn ection 139(1). Accordingly, the inte ustified, and liable to be deleted or suit (A) and Ld. AO erred in law and on f se Notice under Section 148 of the A Juri ictional Assessing Officer, the authority to issue such notice. Th he judgment of the Hon'ble High Cour s. Assistant Commissioner of Income- 414, wherein it was held that the Ju to issue a notice under Section 148. A ment is liable to be quashed. prays for leave to add, to alter and/o before the final hearing of the appeal.” has noted a delay of 253 day e has moved an application fo davit detailing a sequence of per or citizen not conversant with d and untimely demise of her only relevant part of the affidavit is plicant is preferring the present appea passed by the Hon'ble Commission al Faceless Appeal Centre, under S 61 for the A.Y. 2018-19. D 'bijaychandra204@gmail.com', whi ppellant, Mr. Bijaychandra Mahanty, -filing portal. The appellant, being no lied on her husband for handling onli nt humbly submits that she and her conversant with digital modes of co nupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty 3 erest levied is tably reduced. facts by issuing Act, despite the Ward 28(1)(1) his position is 6 rt of Bombay in -tax [2024] 164 uri ictional ÃO Accordingly, the or to amend the ” ys in filing this or condonation, rsonal tragedies. igital interfaces, y son during the s reproduced as al against the order ner of Income Tax Section 250 of the ich belongs to the was registered on ot well-versed with ine tax matters and husband are aged ommunication. Her husband, is also n of the email id. As and the timelines f

Consequently, awareness and unaware of the rec timelines for filing promptly taken the PERSONAL TRA HARDSHIP

The appellan treatment for a se including frequent period, the app responsibilities, wh strain on her. As financial matters.

On 08th Marc tragedy with the su collapsed unexpec was entirely unf psychological impa

Following the husband were in a performing religiou completely incapac obligations during

In view of the a days in filing the a hardship, emotion respectfully submi to any negligence o

We have heard of condonation of de Bishn not tech-savvy and could not apprecia s a result, the appellant remained un for appeal. due to this genuine and unavoida understanding, the appellant rem ceipt of the appealable order and, cruc g the appeal. Had we been aware e necessary steps. GEDY LEADING TO EMOTIONAL nt's only son, Mr. Tushar Mahanty erious medical condition that require hospital visits and periodic hospitali pellant was entirely occupied hich placed significant physical, emo a result, she was unable to atten ch 2025, the appellant suffered a udden demise of her only son, Mr. Tus tedly in the washroom and passed a foreseen and caused an immens act on the appellant and her family. e untimely death of her son, the a a state of deep emotional distress. The us rites and coping with the loss, whic citated from undertaking any persona that period. above facts and circumstances, there h appeal. The delay has occurred solely nal trauma, and lack of technical tted that the delay is neither delibera or willful inaction on the part of the ap the rival submission of the part lay in filing the appeal. It is a s nupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty 4 ate the significance naware of the order able lack of digital mained completely cially, the statutory e, we would have L AND MENTAL , was undergoing d continuous care, ization. During this with caregiving otional, and mental nd to any legal or profound personal shar Mahanty, who away. The incident se emotional and appellant and her ey were engaged in ch left the appellant al, legal, or financial has been a delay of due to unavoidable knowledge. It is ate nor attributable ppellant.” ties on the issue settled principle of law, as enunciate Land Acquisition v. M 1987 SCC (2) 107) t considerations" are prevail. The express construction to adv emotional trauma an find the delay was n was prevented by w time, as there are b condone the delay i adjudication.

Briefly stated fa filed its return of inco the information avai department that ass value of Rs. 1,14,15,2 process under amend Act,1961 ( in short t 07.04.2022 directing response, the asses disclosing total inco sent to National Fac proceedings were com Bishn ed by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou Mst. Katiji, 1987 AIR 1353, 198 that when "substantial justice" pitted against each other, th sion "sufficient cause" must r vance the cause of justice. I nd the digital divide faced by th neither deliberate nor negligen way of sufficient cause in filing onafide reasons for the delay, in filing the appeal and admi acts of the case are that the as ome for the year under consider ilable on the insight portal of sessee purchased a immovable 254/-, the ld Assessing officer fo ded provision of section 148 of the Act) issued notice u/s. 14 g the assessee to file return ssee filed return of income me of Rs. 2,95,315/-. Thereaf celess Assessment(NAFC) unit a mmenced. The assessee was a nupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty 5 urt in Collector, 87 SCR (2) 387, " and "technical he former must eceive a liberal In view of the he Assessee, we nt. The assessee g the appeal on accordingly, we it the same for ssessee had not ration. In view of the income tax e property for a ollowing the due f the Income-tax 8 of the Act on of income. In on 18.01.2024 fter the case of and assessment asked to explain the source of investm the assessee. Therefo by the assessee in aggregating to Rs. 1,2 of the Act. On further observing as under: “4.2 During the co amount of Rs. 1, property and the owners of the pr Bijaychandra Mah the A.Y. 2018-19. property made prop 4.3 I have gone assessment order by the appellant appellant, her hus showing the paym appellant had paid Bijaychandra Mah Tushar Mahanty h

3.1 It is seen fro of income filed in that the appellant Under the circums payments of Rs. 8 the appellant has n Sri Bijaychandra creditworthiness of 4.3.2 In the appell appellant to rebut documentary evide the cogent explan evidence and proof by all the 3 coo 1,21,00,254 In vie the assesse failed Bishn ment in the property but no deta ore, the Ld.AO considered the in n property along with stam 21,00,254/- as unexplained inv r appeal, Ld. CIT(A) also confirm ourse of appellate proceedings, it is 14,15,254/- had invested in purch stamp duty value of Rs. 6,85,000/ roperty purchased i.e. Mrs. Bihnupr hanty (Husband) and Mr. Tushar Ma The total payment regarding the purc portionally by 3 coowners. e through the grounds of appeal, s and the submissions of the appellan that the property was purchased b sband and her son. The appellant ha ents made to towards purchase of flat d Rs. 85,26,000/- including GST an hanty has pald Rs. 23,22,200/- incl had stated to have been paid of Rs. 1,8 om the computation of income filed alo response to notice under sec. 148 fo is having income from other sources tances, it is not established how she 5,26,000/- to purchase an immovable not filed any ITR or computation of inc Mahanty and Mr. Tushar Mahanty f these co-owners. late proceedings, the burden of proof t the decision of the Assessing offi ence. In the instant case the appellan nation duly supported by corrobora ofs to establish the genuineness of th owners to purchase the immovable ew of the above it is held that the AO d to discharge the onus vested on nupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty 6 ails were filed by nvestment made mp duty value vestment u/s 69 med the addition submitted that the hase of immovable /-, there are 3 co- riya Mahanty, Mr. ahanty (Son) during chase of immovable statement of facts nt. It is simply held by 3 co-owners viz s filed a statement t. it is seen that the nd her husband Sri GST. Her son mr. 80,000/-. ong with the return or the A.Y. 2018-19 at Rs. 3,05,123/-. e has mobilized the e property. Further, come in the case of y to establish the always lies on the icer with verifiable nt failed to produce ative documentary he payments made e property of Rs. correctly held that n her by not filing necessary explana evidence. Therefor the Act as the sou Ground No. 1 of thi

Before us learn containing pages No assessee submits th assessee along with h made by all the three many years. Ld. C explaining the year w bank statement of a also referred to the l assessment but we investment were no Assessing officer, the additional evidence. 5.1 Having consider opinion that docume  Co-ownership: three family mem  Temporal Spre single year bu contrary to the A Bishn ation of source of cash with suffic re, the additions made by the AQ are urce of which remain unexplained and is appeal is dismissed.” ed counsel for the assessee file . 1 to 328. Before us learned hat property in dispute was her husband and son and inves e family members, which was s Counsel referred to the pape wise payment made to the bui all the three family members. T legal ground challenging the va find that submissions regar ot filed before either the Ld. erefore all those documents are red the submission of the asse entation of assessee purportedly That the property was a joint mbers. ead: That payments were not co ut were spread across multip AO's "telescoped" addition. nupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty 7 cient documentary confirmed is 69 of d unsubstantiated. ed a paper book counsel for the purchased by stment has been spread over past er book pages ilder along with The Ld. counsel alidity of the re- rding source of CIT(A) or the in nature of the essee, we are of y demonstrates: t investment by oncentrated in a ple prior years,

In the result, a purpose. Order pronoun (KAVITHA RA JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated:13/03/2026 Disha Raut, Stenographer