URMILABEN THAKORDAS SOPARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) – 3 Delhi [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds:

1. Learned officer has erred in facts as well as in law while issuing the impugned order.

on OR and/OR DLEETE all OR any of the grounds of appeal on OR and/OR DLEETE all OR any of the grounds of appeal on OR before the final hearing. before the final hearing.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed facts of the case are that the assessee filed original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at Rs.7,27,040/-. Subsequently, in view of information, the Assessing . Subsequently, in view of information, the Assessing . Subsequently, in view of information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Income 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on t ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on t ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 wherein two additions wherein two additions were made by the Assessing Officer, were made by the Assessing Officer, firstly, for long term capital gain of Rs.29,40,658/ for long term capital gain of Rs.29,40,658/- and secondly and secondly, addition u/s 50C of the Act amounting to Rs.7,36,213/ the Act amounting to Rs.7,36,213/-.

3. On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the registered e-mail ID as well as on the e mail ID as well as on the e-filing portal filing portal, no compliance was made on the part of the assessee and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was made on the part of the assessee and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was made on the part of the assessee and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition m upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer vide his ade by the Assessing Officer vide his impugned order.

3.1 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drawn out attention Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drawn out attention Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drawn out attention to the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The to the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The to the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. Counsel submitted that notices were issued on the e-mail ID Ld. Counsel submitted that notices were issued on the e Ld. Counsel submitted that notices were issued on the e other than the e-mail ID mentioned in the form No. 35 and mail ID mentioned in the form No. 35 and mail ID mentioned in the form No. 35 and therefore, assessee was herefore, assessee was not having access to the order of the Ld. not having access to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and which resulted in delay in filing appeal by 251 days. CIT(A) and which resulted in delay in filing appeal CIT(A) and which resulted in delay in filing appeal According to the Ld. Counsel there are bona the Ld. Counsel there are bonafide reasons and fide reasons and assessee is having a strong case on merit. In support of the In support of the application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the affidavit of the assessee placed reliance upon the affidavit of the assessee dated 07.10.2025 dated 07.10.2025 explaining the reasons which, according to him, constitute a explaining the reasons which, according to him, constitute a explaining the reasons which, according to him, constitute a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitat “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitat Act, 1963, as applicable to proceedings under the Income-tax Act. Act, 1963, as applicable to proceedings under the Income Act, 1963, as applicable to proceedings under the Income

Order pronounced by way display o Order pronounced by way display of result on notice board f result on notice board on 30/10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963.