HARLEEN KAUR GHURA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without dealing with the grounds of appeal

The appeal against the said order was required to be filed within a period of two months from the end of the month in which the aforesaid order is passed. Accordingly, the time limit to file an appeal got expired on 31/05/2025. However, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit for the reasons as stated hereunder

The case of the appellant was reopened vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 07/04/2022. The reason for reopening of the case, as stated by the Ld. Assessing Officer was that, the appellant had purchased an immovable property for an amount of ₹ 1,24,00,000 & correspondingly the appellant had not submitted her return of income for the year under consideration.

The property which was purchased and for which the information was available with the Assessing Officer was bearing the address 'Flat No. 1201. 12th Floor, A-Wing Building No. S-3, Odyssey CHS Ltd., Bhakti Park, Wadala (E), Mumbai 400037. The aforesaid purchase transaction of impugned property was executed by the appellant's husband, mother-in-law and by the appellant vide an Agreement of Sale dated 15th January, 2018.

It may be noted that, the entire payment for purchase of the impugned property was made by the appellant's husband and mother-in-law. The appellant had not paid even a single penny for purchase of the said immovable property.

Subsequently owing to serious marital discord which arose between the appellant and her husband, they got separated on 20/10/2018 and finally it got culminated in a decision to dissolve their marriage by way of divorce by filing a petition before the family court dated 21-06-2023 bearing Petition No. F-4133 of 2022

As per the terms of the settlement as agreed between them, the appellant had agreed to gift her right, title and interest in the impugned property to her husband.

Accordingly, vide the gift deed dated 29th March, 2022, the appellant had gifted her right, title and interest in the impugned property to her husband.

Since then, the husband of the appellant (by way of gift) was vested with all the appellant's right, title and interest in the impugned property. Therefore, her husband (vide letter dated 18/05/2022) expressly undertook to represent and resolve all income-tax related issues pertaining to the impugned property.

During the course of assessment proceeding, various notices and show cause notices were issued to the appellant from time to time. The husband of the appellant had duly complied the same on her behalf.

Meanwhile, the assessment order under section 147 of the Act was passed on 29/01/2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, the husband of the appellant, on behalf of her, preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT-(Α).

Subsequent to the undertaking given by the husband to handle the income-tax proceeding, the appellant stopped bothering about the said appeal and completely relied the proceedings entirely on her behalf and did not personally participate therein. on the bona fide assurance and representation of her husband and allowed him to handle

Owing to dissolution of marriage by way of divorce decree dated 21-6-2023, the appellant and her husband ceased all the communication with each other. The appellant, being unaware of the procedural status of the appeal and having no access to the relevant records or electronic communication, remained under the bona fide belief that the appeal was being properly prosecuted by her husband and very soon the same will get resolved.

The Ld. CIT-(A) thereafter issued several notices of hearing under section 250 of the Act. all of which were transmitted to the email address operated and controlled solely by the appellant's husband. The mail ids on which such notices were issued were *harleen0609@gmail.com" and "harleen@hotmail.com' Kind attention of Your Honour is drawn to the fact that, even though, both the above stated mail id contained the name of the appellant, they were being operated by her husband only and, as a result of which, she remained unaware of the ongoing proceedings and could not respond to various notices of hearing issued.

Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), in the absence of any representation or compliance, proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, passing the impugned order dated 24/03/2025.

The appellant came to know of the said ex-parte order only upon receipt of a physical notice relating to penalty proceeding dated 15-10-2025 (arising from the above said assessment order) sent to her postal address. This was the first instance wherein the appellant became aware that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) had already been decided. Upon learning that, the CIT(A) Order has been passed against her, she got completely shocked because she was under the bona fide belief that, the appeal was being properly prosecuted by her husband and very soon the same will get resolved.

Since thereafter the appellant took diligent steps to obtain a copy of the CIT(A)'s order, sought professional advice, and initiated the process of filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The delay in filing the appeal has thus occurred due to circumstances entirely beyond the control of the appellant and not on account of any willful default, negligence, or inaction.

The appellant respectfully submits that the delay occasioned is bona fide and unintentional. The appellant has acted with due diligence upon becoming aware of the order and has promptly taken all necessary steps to pursue her legal remedies.

It is a well-settled principle of law that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] has held that a liberal and justice-oriented approach must be adopted in matters concerning condonation of delay, as refusal to condone may result in meritorious matters being dismissed at the threshold.

On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay therefore application seeking condonation may be rejected.

We have heard counsel for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, and the judgment cited before us on application seeking condonation of delay. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities of non- deliberate delay then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance, hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and considering the expression “sufficient cause” liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground of merits.

Be that as it may without going into the merits of the issues we are of the view that since assessee was ex parte before ld. CIT(A) and has now shown sufficient cause for his non- appearance thus we set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A), for deciding the same afresh after providing sufficient and adequate opportunity to the assessee subject to the cost of Rs. 2000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee in PM’s Relief Fund and the receipt of the same be filed before ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Before parting, we want to make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.