SHOBHA SACHEENDRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-42(3)(3), MUMBAI

The present appeal is delayed by 115 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay, duly supported by her affidavit. In the said affidavit, the assessee submitted that she is an NRI and residing in Zambia. As per the assessee, at different points in time, various email addresses were mentioned in her income tax returns, depending upon the tax consultant handling her tax matters. It is further submitted that for the year under consideration, reassessment proceedings were initiated. However, she was not aware as to on which email address, the show cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued. It is further submitted that thereafter all the notices were issued on the email address of the tax consultant, which was beyond her control and access. The assessee claims that, as the tax consultant had multiple email addresses, the notices issued to the assessee remained unattended during the assessment proceedings. It is submitted that when the assessee visited India briefly in the year 2024, she raised a grievance on the e-filing portal, requesting the reopening of the response facility. However, without resolution of the grievance, the assessment order was passed on 29/02/2024. As per the assessee, the said assessment order was not served on her on the personal email address or through physical delivery.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and Ors., reported in 1987 (2) SCR 387.

From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), it is evident that the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed on the ground of delay of 142 days, as the assessee could not explain the reason for not filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period, along with supporting documents. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee before us, as noted in the foregoing paragraph, it is evident that the assessee has duly explained the circumstances resulting in the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A).

Having perused the same, we are of the considered view that the assessee has proved sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the said delay should be condoned. Hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for consideration on merits, as per law, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. We order accordingly. We order accordingly. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to update her email address in the records of the learned CIT(A) so that all the hearing notices are duly attended without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage, and therefore, the same are kept open. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.