IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Minakshi Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, 31 Green Paradise, A to Z Ward 35(2)(3), Colony, Modipuram, Mumbai Roorkee Road, Pratyakshakar Meerut-250110 Bhavan, C-12, PAN: BKMPS3632K Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)

Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri. Dipanshu Agrawal (Virtually)

i/b Shri. Sandeep Jain Respondent by Shri. Sajit Nair, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 13.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:

The Present appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 22/10/2024 passed by NFAC Delhi, of assessment 2011-

12.

2. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that there was delay of 1677 days in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted that assessee is wife of an Indian Armed Force officer and has no independent taxable income. Hence no return were filed by the assessee during the year under consideration. However it is submitted that during the year assessee indulged herself into trading of future and option with a small capital and booked losses due to lack of knowledge, and at the end, took exit from the market by bearing losses from the market.

2.1 The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee only invested Rs. 1,50,000/- in the future and option of trading with stock exchange in key net finance company limited and Relegate Services Ltd. through proper banking channel.

The Ld.AO passed assessment order making addition in the hands of the assessee at 1% of net margin money of assumed turnover of Rs.16,86,30,200/- .

2.2 It is submitted that, the assessee neither received any notices of hearing by before the assessment officer not received the assessment order in time. It is submitted that the assessee received the assessment order to me on 07/08/2023 though the assessment orders dated 18/12/2018.

2.3 The Ld.AR submitted that, it was under such circumstances that the appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A) with the delay of 1677 days. It is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the reason or even without granting an opportunity to the assessee to furnish a detailed explanation for the delay, passed the impugned order by dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

3. The Ld.AR submitted that, this caused great injustice and prejudice to the assessee, as the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was absolutely unintentional and that the assessee never received the assessment order in time.

3.1 On the contrary the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by authorities below.

4. It is noted that the assessment orders were received by the assessee in the year 2023 though the assessment order is dated 18/12/2018. It is further noted that, the Ld.CIT(A) did not consider the submissions of the assessee or even investigate as to why or how the assessment order dated 18/12/2018 was received by the assessee on 07/08 2023.

4.1 Having regard to the submissions by the assessee, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. dated 25.6.2018, condoned the delay of 2819 days by observing as follows:

“6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons and prayed for condonation of delay. The reason stated by the assessee is due to inadvertent omission on the part of Shri Unnikrishnan Nair N, CA in taking appropriate action to file the appeal. He had a mistaken belief that the appeal for this year was filed by the assessee as there was separate Counsel to take steps to file this appeal before the ITAT. Therefore, we have to consider whether the Counsel’s failure is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Madra