PURNIMA SHETTY,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 26(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

O R D E R PER O.P. KANT (AM): This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06/05/2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 58, Mumbai (in short, ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’) for A.Y. 2013-14, raising following grounds:-

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: Dismissible of application for condonation of delay in filing appeal Purnima Shetty 1. The Comm. of Income-tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai (CIT(A)] erred in not condoning delay of about 25 months in filing of appeal by the appellant before the CIT(A) 2 The CIT(A) erred in falling to appreciate that addition of Rs.20.00.000 and of Rs 91,694 has resulted in double taxation of the said amount in the hands of the appellant and as such, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in faing the appeal and decided the same on merits The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another The appellant- trust craves leave to add, to amend, to modify, to alter, to substitute and/or to delete all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the hearing.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that in view of the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee and no return of income filed for the year under consideration, re-assessment proceedings were initiated and the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with section 144 on 18/12/2019, wherein he made addition of Rs.32,83,390/- in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 24/02/2024 alongwith request for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee submitted that she is a ‘Non Resident’ and was staying in United Arab Emirates (UAE) for almost 25 years. She submitted that she had not earned any income in India above the basic exemption limit and, therefore, no return of income was filed for the year under consideration. Further, she submitted that she had come to India few years back and wanted to make some investments in mutual funds and other securities and, therefore, she obtained permanent account number with the address of one of the investment advisors and she never received the notices issued or the order passed for the year under consideration. She submitted that she came to know about the assessment order Purnima Shetty only when she approached another Chartered Accountant in relation to some investment advice. The Ld.CIT(A), however, did not find the above submission of the assessee as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the following decisions: 1. Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. 1962 AIR 361 (SC); 2. Satbarg Singh v.ITO [2015] 61 taxmann.com 46 (Chandigarh-Trib); 3. T. Kishan v. ACIT, [2012] 23 taxmann.com 383 (Hyerabad) 4. Varma Apparels (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 398 (Bombay) 2.1 Relying on the above decisions, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing as under:- “4.4 in the case of the assessee, the assessment order dated 18.12.2019 was already available in the e-portal. It was the casual approach of the assessee not to bother about any correspondence of mail received in the e-portal by the assessee. Thus, there was no sufficient reason or cause for the assessee to file the appeal delayed. Therefore, delay of more than 25 months in filing of the appeal to the CIT(A) is not condoned and the appeal is Dismissed.”

4. With that intention in mind. I approached some investment advisor who told me that I will have to obtain an Income-tax Permanent Account Number (PAN) in India. He further told me that he will arrange to obtain the PAN for me and did so by giving an address which did not belong to me. The said address continued to appear in the Income-tax Department's database till recently after which it has been duly changed. Hence, all Notices in the course of assessment proceedings were directed at that address. I never received those Notices. In fact, I was not at all aware that such Notices have been issued by the Income-tax Department. It is only under those circumstances that there was non-compliance by me to the Notices issued by the Department which never reached me 5. Recently, I approached VHPA & CO LLP a firm of Chartered Accountants (CA firm) for some investment advice. The said CA firm took a review of my account on the Income-tax Department's portal and was surprised to notice several demands outstanding against my name for the said assessment year 2013-14. It was only at that point in time that I became aware of all the facts after they were explained to me by the CA firm and their consequences. Hence, I have now taken steps to rectify the omissions on my part and set the record straight.” 3.1 Though the Ld. DR opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of the delay; however, no counter affidavit has been filed by the revenue. 4. Under section 249(2) of the Act, limitation period for filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) has been provided as of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Assessing Officer, but the section 249(3) of the Act empowers the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay, if he is satisfied with the assessee on ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting the appeal within the limitation period. For evaluating sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. Katiji AIR (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down following six principles: (i) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (ii) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

Purnima Shetty (iii) Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

(iv) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay (v) There is no presumption that delay culpable negligence, or on account is occasioned deliberately, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.

(vi) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its pouser to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

4.1 The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and advance cause of the substantial justice. In view of ratio of the decisions referred above and uncontroverted affidavit filed by the assessee, we feel it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Id. First Appellate Authority.

Purnima Shetty 5. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to him for deciding the appeal of the assessee on the merit. The grounds raised are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.