ANISHA H. KULAVOOR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(1)(1), MUMBAI

At the very outset, it was observed that the instant appeal is delayed by a period of 166 days. The accompanying condonation petition dated 29.4.2015, which is supported by an affidavit dated 24.4.2015, explains the said delay to be on account of (A.Y.2009-10) Smt. Anisha H. Kulavoor vs. ITO the death of the assessee’s Chartered Accountant (CA), who was representing her in the tax proceedings and had all the relevant documents in his possession. It is observed that similar submissions were also made by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), which stand reproduced at para 2.2 of the impugned order. As it appears, the delay is for want of proper legal advice in view of the death of the assessee’s counsel, with the new counsel, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) before us, having been appointed only on 29.4.2015. The said death, however, took place in the year 2013, i.e., much before the date of passing of the impugned order. There has thus certainly been some negligence on the part of the assessee in attending to her affairs, and the delay can only be said to be attributable to her. We have already noted want of proper legal counsel to the assessee, a lady working single handedly; her husband working at Dubai. The delay in my opinion should not prove fatal, shutting out scope of any legal remedy. Accordingly, taking a liberal view, the delay is condoned, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The ld. AR agreeing to the same, the appeal was admitted and the hearing in the matter was proceeded with. On merits, it is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the impugned addition, which is in respect of non or unsatisfactory explanation for the source of acquisition of cash for Rs.6.22 lacs, in the absence of substantiation of her case by the assessee. Even the observations by the Assessing Officer (A.O.), who had called for the assessee’s books of account, including cash book, are explicit in the matter. The assessee, however, as apparent from the reading of para 2.2 of the impugned order, had sought adjournment, seeking one month’s time to be able to present her case before the ld. CIT(A). The impugned order is silent on this. The condonation application before us also clarifies that the assessee has since been able to locate the relevant papers. The assessee’s case at the first appellate stage has been thus clearly unrepresented, i.e., on merits. In fact, the assessee’s prayer before the tribunal was limited to being granted an opportunity toward the same.

(A.Y.2009-10) Smt. Anisha H. Kulavoor vs. ITO Under the circumstances, it is only considered proper to, in the interest of justice, vacating the impugned order, restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits in accordance with the law, issuing definite findings of fact, and after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to state her case before him. I decide accordingly.

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