AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Page. No 2

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy 3.3 This is neither as per CDT vide Notification No. 3/2012, dt. 4-1- 2012 nor as per CBDT vide Notification No. 2/2012, dated 4-1-2012 has specified the Centralised Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011.

5. ADDITIONS OF TWO INCOMES NOT PORTRAYED IN THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1)(a): 5.1 ADDITIONS BEYOND SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC 143(1)(a): Ld AO has erred in not depicting that any income other than the income of Rs. 14,16,609/- is proposed to be taxed in the notice issued u/s 143(1)(a), without providing an opportunity in retaining the salary without rectification & making it zero being Professional income and taxing again an amount to Rs. 14,16,609/- as other sources (though form 26AS shows the same u/s 194J) and the reply of the assessee was not taken into consideration as sec 44ADA though shown in sec 143(1)(a) in the proposed adjustment. Therefore, the same is beyond the scope of Provision of Sec 143(1). 5.2 ADDITIONS MADE ON IRRELEVANT MATERIAL, NON- EXISTENT FACT OR ON PRESUMPTION, ON CONJECTURES, SURMISES NOT SUSTAINABLE: The Ld AO-CPC is not justified in processing the return with a mistake classifiable u/s 154, which is visible clearly from the record with a naked eye and should have issued final SCN before doing so. Hence the impugned intimation issued was arbitrary and erroneous. While making addition on that issue, it may be possible that the AO-PC was influenced by some irrelevant or nonexistent fact. The same was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC). 5.3 ADDITION PREMISED ON SUSPICION OR SURMISE: The Ld AO-CPC has failed to appreciate that surmises, conjecture and suspicion could not be a basis much less a valid basis in processing the income chargeable u/s 4. Therefore, the said action is not sustainable, as was held in Page. No 3

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy - ESTHURI ASWANTHIAH v. CIT 1968 AIR 36 1967 SCR (3) 681 dtd 18/04/1967 - Shri Raj Kumar (M/S Radhika Sales Corp) vs Income Tax Officer Ward- 3(3), Amritsar on 11 April, 2023 (I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022).

6. NON-SPEAKING ORDER OF AO-PC BEING INCOME ASSUMED WRONGLY WITHOUT ANY BREAK UP: The Ld AO is not justified in not providing any reason treating the 26AS as extra income & taxing Salary again makes it a taxing twice since reply of the assessee was 44ADA which ought have been taxed at 50% u/s 44ADA on Rs. 13,55,009/- (Form 26AS shows lower amount of Rs. 13,19,139/-), where as Ld AO has made addition of Rs. 14,16,609/- at 100% too apart from salary of Rs. 12,05,509/-. The total receipts as perform 26AS comes to Rs. 14,28,837/- when compared to Income of Rs. 14,16,609/- shown in intimation u/s 143(1)(a) arbitrarily, hence void ab-initio. The same observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., [2021] 4 SCC 516.

7. HIGH PITCHED ASSESSMENT PASSED ON MERE SUSPICION: The Ld AO-CPC has erred in not applying his mind and passed the impugned erroneous order/intimation u/s 143(1) summarily on suspicion & in arbitrary manner. Therefore, the assessment fails and void ab-initio.

Page. No 4

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy The same is not downloadable though hanging in the e-portal. However, the assessee is liable to pay only Rs. 86,681 only and not Rs. 6,00,000/-as per the demand notice/Asst order. (Enclosed actual Computation sheet u/s 44ADA as per the act before the hon'ble bench).

11. Any other ground that may be add/delete or urged at the time of hearing or before the hearing.”

Page. No 5

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy

3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 1503 days, the latter declined to exercise the discretion vested with him under section 249(3) of the Act and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. For the sake of clarity, I deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the CIT(A), as under: -

“2. Decision :- 2.1 As mentioned at the outset, against the assessment order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 27.01.2020, the appellant filed an appeal vide Form No.35 dated 07.04.2024. From the date of service of the order it is seen, that there is a delay of 1503 days in filing appeal. The appeal should have been filed within 30 days i.e. by 26.02.2020 from service of Order / Notice of Demand as per Section 249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has admitted to the delay in filing and has given the reason for condonation of delay which is as under:-. "There is a delay 1501 days due to non availability or non communication of intimation u/s 143(1). The same is visible in the portal as if uploaded(assessed) on 11-01-2019 but assessee is unable to download from the portal and running from pillar to post to get a copy of that for filing appeal. The delays are not attributable top assessee and file this appeal immediately. Hence the delay may be condoned" 2.2 The relevant screenshot are pasted below for instant reference:-

Page. No 6

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy

2.3 After considering the assessee's reasons, this office is not satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal as there is a delay of 1503 days in filing appeal. The assessee's waiting for action on the response filed is not a valid reason for delay, as the assesse should have taken timely action to file the appeal. 2.4 There is a statutory limit prescribed for filing of appeal in the Act. The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the Addl./JCIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause The appellant cannot be entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. This is not a substantiated and valid argument. Ignorance of law or of proceedings under law cannot be taken as an excuse. The onus lay on the appellant to keep track of the email and proceedings in his case. Digital or e-proceedings are the norm of the day now in this modern era and proceedings in the department have been digitized and are carried out through digital medium. The act of the appellant in not filing appeal within time and not having any credible reason by way of sufficient cause for delay in filing cannot be condoned. 2.5 The statute clearly lays down the timeline for filing appeal. Any deviation from the same can be condoned only if there is presence of sufficient cause for the same as found by the adjudicating authority. The unsubstantiated reason given by the appellant for delay is not found to fall within the four corners of 'sufficient cause' for the same, thereby rendering it ineligible for condonation and admission. Thus, this brief and unsubstantiated as well as invalid reason given by the appellant for delay of 1503 days is not found to be sufficient cause for the same. 2.6 In the instant case, the issue of the merits of the additions made by the AO and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant could be taken up only when this first stage of delay was addressed. 2.7 In the case of Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram dated

31. January, 2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that - "What we have here is a pure civil matter. An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals

Page. No 7

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day's delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. In the present case, this delay has not been explained to the satisfaction of the court....n the case of Mahant Bikram Dass Chela versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and Others (SC) has held "Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around Section 5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every day's delay..... This Court in the case of Basawaraj and Another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer (SC) while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: "The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time, condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature. 2.8 In view of the facts as discussed hereinabove and the judicial decisions on the matter of delay in filing appeals, this appeal is not admitted for adjudication as it is delayed and not filed within the time limit provided and no sufficient cause has been provided by the appellant for the delay. In the absence of sufficient cause for the delay, the same cannot be condoned.

4. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.

Page. No 8

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy

Page. No 9

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy

8. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) had crept in for the reason that she could not download the intimation issued by the AO/CPC, Bengaluru, that was issued under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 11.01.2019. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and facts in not considering the explanation of the assessee and summarily dismissing her appeal on the ground of limitation itself. The Ld. AR, in his attempt to impress that the impugned delay in filing the appeal had crept in because of failure on the part of the assessee to download the intimation from the income tax portal account, had drawn support from the assessee’s “affidavit” dated 15.04.2024 (photocopy placed on record). Also, the Ld. AR had drawn my attention to a screenshot of the intimation issued by the AO/CPC, Bengaluru, under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 23.04.2024, which revealed the error in downloading the same. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was able to download the intimation issued by the AO/CPC under section 143(1) of the Act only as on 02.04.2024. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had, thereafter, involving no further loss of time, filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 07.04.2024, but, as the same involved a delay of 1503 days, the same was dismissed by him on the ground of limitation itself. The Ld. AR submitted that as the CIT(A) had without considering the bonafide reasons leading to the delay in filing the appeal, dismissed the same, therefore, in all fairness and interest of justice the matter be restored to his file with a direction to condone the delay

Page. No 10

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy and dispose of the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

9. Per contra, Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. DR”) supported the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 1503 days involved in the appeal before the CIT(A) is inordinate, therefore, he had rightly declined to exercise the discretion vested with him under section 249(3) of the Act and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation itself. The Ld. DR had drawn our attention to the fact that the AO/CPC, Bengaluru, had vide his communication dated 06.07.2018 pointed out to the assessee an inconsistency in his return of income, wherein it was brought to his notice that the income from the other sources of Rs.14,16,609/- as disclosed in his Form 26AS was not included in the return of income. The Ld. DR submitted that the AO/CPC, Bengaluru, vide another communication dated 23.10.2018, had brought to the notice of the assessee another inconsistency in his return of income, and the assessee had responded to the same. The Ld. DR submitted that the AO/CPC, Bengaluru, after considering the infirmities in the return of income, had even advised the assessee to file a correct return of income.

10. Be that as it may, I find that the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involves an inordinate delay of 1503 days. As is discernible from the “Form 35” filed by the assessee before CIT(A), the assessee at S.no.15 had stated that the delay of 1503 days in filing the appeal had crept in because she

Page. No 11

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy could not download the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, which was uploaded by the AO/CPC on 11.01.2019. Accordingly, it was stated by the assessee that as the delay in filing the appeal was not attributable to any delay or laches on her part but because of the aforesaid reason, which was beyond her control, therefore, in all fairness and interest of justice, the same be condoned. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention that the delay involved in the present appeal merits condonation had pressed into service the order of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Shri Arthur Bernard Sebastine Pais v. DCIT in dated 16.10.2019. Also, the Ld. AR had pressed into service the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. ACIT in Civil Appeal No. 6671 to 6676/ 2010, dated 07.11.2019. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its aforesaid order had condoned the delay of 1754 days as the appellant had remained unaware of the impugned order.

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy download the intimation issued by the AO/CPC, Bengaluru, issued under section 143(1) of the Act dated 11.01.2019, for a period of as long as four years, I find the same not only incomprehensible but also difficult to fathom. Although the Ld.AR has drawn my attention to the screenshot, which reveals that the intimation issued by AO/CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) of the Act could not be downloaded, but had failed to place on record any material, which could irrefutably evidence the efforts she had put up for obtaining the copy of the aforesaid intimation during the aforesaid period of four years. The Ld. AR has not produced before me any such material, which would reveal that the assessee had approached any of the income tax authorities, A.O/CPC, Bengaluru; or filed any grievance that she had been divested of her right to assail the adjustments made vide intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, dated 11.01.2019 by the AO/CPC by filing an appeal before the CIT(A), for the reason that the copy of the impugned Intimation issued by the A.O/CPC, Bengaluru, based on which the impugned addition and the consequential exorbitant demand of Rs.6,36,000/- was raised in her hands was not being made available to her. I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the unsubstantial claim of the Ld.AR that the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee had crept in for no fault on her part. In fact, I will mince no words in observing that as the present case before me is a case of gross negligence and the lackadaisical approach adopted by the assessee, which had resulted in an inordinate delay of 1503 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), and, thus, does not merit condonation. I have given thoughtful consideration to the Page. No 13

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld.AR and am of the view that the same being distinguishable on facts will not assist the case of the present assessee before me. I am of the view that though a judicial and liberal approach should be adopted for condoning the delay involved in filing of an appeal by an appellant and the same should normally be condoned, but the law is well settled that while courts are expected to adopt a liberal approach in considering petitions for condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown, such liberality cannot be extended to condone inordinate delay where the explanation is vague, casual, or lacking in bona fides. My aforesaid view is supported by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC), wherein it was held as under:

“It is not that a delay of a few days is to be condoned automatically. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The courts have to exercise discretion only when sufficient cause is shown and not in a routine manner.” Similarly, in Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed, as under:

“The expression ‘sufficient cause’ should be construed strictly and not liberally merely to benefit a litigant who is negligent. Delay cannot be condoned merely because the Government or a private party has a good case on merits. The applicant must explain each day’s delay satisfactorily.”

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 has held, as under:

Page. No 14

I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy

“Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.”

Accordingly, by applying the above principles to the present case, I find that the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the reason leading to the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) does not inspire any confidence and is devoid and bereft of any substance. I further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470, has observed that limitation provisions are based on sound public policy — to ensure certainty, finality, and avoidance of stale claims. In the instant case, as the assessee has failed to come forth with any plausible explanation leading to the inordinate delay of 1503 days involved in the appeal filed before the CIT(A), therefore, as the said delay of a substantial period is also not backed up by any justifiable reason, I am constrained to uphold the well reasoned view taken by the CIT(A), who had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th February, 2026.