Case Law Details
Smt. Hebsiba Daniel Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
The assessee appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13.02.2026 for Assessment Year 2019-20.
The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 after receiving information that the assessee had purchased foreign currency, made foreign remittances and received salary from International Justice Mission. The assessee thereafter filed her return of income. Notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued, and the assessee initially filed submissions and documents. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued another notice under Section 143(2) and a show cause notice, but the assessee did not respond. The Assessing Officer concluded that no documents had been furnished to support the claim that Rs. 23,12,000 had been gifted by the assessee’s husband and treated the purchase of foreign currency as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, as the source was not furnished.
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), stating that she was pursuing an MBA in Canada and had received cash from her husband and parents, which was utilised for tuition fees and other expenses. Supporting documents were also filed. However, the appeal was delayed by 38 days. The assessee explained that the delay was due to her hospitalization. The CIT(A), not being satisfied with the explanation, dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee produced a medical certificate and other supporting documents, contending that the delay was minimal and occurred due to hospitalization. The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal examined the medical certificate and found that the assessee had been hospitalized. It also noted that the documents filed before the Tribunal and the CIT(A) had not been considered as the appeal had been dismissed on limitation. Holding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for de novo consideration of the appeal on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 13/02/2026 in respect of the A.Y. 2019-20.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and not filed her return of income. Based on the information that the assessee had purchased foreign currency and also made foreign remittance and also received salary from International Justice Mission, the AO had alleged that income has escaped from assessment and notice u/s. 148 was issued.
Thereafter the assessee filed her return of income. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. The assessee filed their submissions along with documents. The AO thereafter issued 143(2) and show cause notice but the assessee had not responded to the said notices and therefore the AO had concluded that no documents are made available to support the contention that her husband gifted the amount of Rs. 23,12,000/-. Similarly, the AO had treated the purchase of foreign currency as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act since the source was not furnished.
3. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was doing her MBA in Canada University for which she received cash from her husband and parents which were utilized for making the foreign remittance towards the tuition fees and for expenses. The assessee also enclosed the supporting documents to show that there is no escapement of any income. The appeal was filed with a delay of 38 days and the assessee also stated that because of the hospitalization, the appeal could not be filed in time. The Ld.CIT(A) not satisfied with the reasons had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
4. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee.
5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the delay happened because of the hospitalization of the assessee and also submitted that the delay is only a minimal one and by considering the issue, the said delay ought to have been condoned by the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed to condone the delay and remit the issue to decide the appeal on merits. The Ld.AR also filed a paper book enclosing the Medical Certificate and other documents.
6. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. We have perused the Medical Certificate and other documents filed in the paper book by way of supporting documents. From the Medical Certificate, it is a fact that the assessee was hospitalized and therefore we cannot reject the contention in toto. We have also considered the documents filed before us as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). All the documents were not considered by the Ld.CIT(A) since the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
9. Considering the facts, we are satisfied that the assessee is having sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) in time. Therefore we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration of the appeal on merits.
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2026.
Author Bio
