IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6140/MUM/2024 ITA No.6167/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) (Assessment Year : 2014–15)

Nilanjana Arvinder Singh., Office No.2/D, 2^nd Floor Calcot House, Tamrind Lane, Fort, Mumbai, G.P.O. Mumbai - 400001 Maharashtra ……………. Appellant PAN – BGAPS2172J v/s DCIT, Circle – 16(3), ……………. Respondent Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 12/03/2025 Date of Order – 13/03/2025

O R D E R

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned order of even date 01/05/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], inter-

alia, for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

2. The present appeals are delayed by 144 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay, wherein the assessee submitted that the Chartered Accountant handling her case was not well and therefore could not compile the necessary documents to file the appeal. In the affidavit, the assessee further submitted that she was travelling out of India on office work for most of the time during the period. Therefore, it is submitted that due to the aforesaid circumstances the present appeals could not be filed within the prescribed limitation period. In support of the aforesaid submission, the assessee has also placed on record the copy of her passport.

3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others: 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well established that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal. In view of the above and having perused the affidavit, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing the present appeals within the limitation period and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeals on merits.

4. Since in both the appeals the assessee has raised similar issues which arise out of the similar factual matrix, therefore, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience, and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is considered as a lead case, and decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal of the assessee.

5. In its appeal for the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee has raised the following grounds: –

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred passing order u/s 147 of the Act.

a. Notices absolutely time barred b. Presumption and surmises and c. Mechanically approved d. Without disposing objections well e. Based on reasons not recorded particularly in respect of the addition made f. No asset is found above Rs. 50 lacs.

Wrongly reopened by JAO instead of FAO h. Notice u/s 148 issued after 4 years i. No hearing granted u/s 148A j. No verification was done by JAO

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned FAO erred in disallowing Rs. 6,35,978/- u/s 37(1) of the Act being 20% of total expenses amounting to Rs. 31,79,890/- claimed in Profit & Loss account for lack of documentary evidences on ad hoc basis.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) er