MAQSOOD ABDUL KARIM VASAIWALA,NAGPADA MUMBAI vs. ITO-20(2)(2), MUMBAI

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The averments made on behalf of the Appellant leading to a delay of 70 days in filing the present appeal is supported by affidavit sworn by the father of the Appellant. A copy of Power of Attorney, executed on 30/01/2020 by the Appellant in favour of his father has also been placed on record. There is nothing before us to disbelieve the averments made by the Appellant which are supported by the aforesaid documents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC), has emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The requirement that every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. The aforesaid doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and in pragmatic manner, and more so in circumstances where a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late as is the case before us. After considering the totality of facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the present appeal, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal needs to be condoned in view of the explanation furnished by the Assessee which (Assessment Year: 2014-15) we find to be reasonable. In our view the Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from presenting the appeal within limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 70 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

5.1. As regards, additions made by the Assessing Officer which were sustained by the CIT(A), we find that the Appellant was proceeded ex- parte as the Appellant had failed to file any details or submissions in response to notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A). On perusal of order passed by the CIT(A), we note that the CIT(A) has taken note of the facts as stated in the statements of facts filed by the Appellant and thereafter confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of lack of reconciliation and failure on the part of the Appellant to file relevant documents/evidences in support of the same. During the appellate proceedings before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant had submitted that the major additions made by the Assessing Officer were based upon the balance sheet for the Assessment Year 2010-11 which was inadvertently submitted during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2014-15. We note that in the statements of facts recorded in paragraph 4.2 of the CIT(A), it has been stated that subsequently the correct financial statements were placed before the Assessing Officer. The submissions of the Appellant is that the correct financial statements have not been considered by the CIT(A). We find merit in the aforesaid contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant. Additionally, we are of the view that given the facts and circumstances of the present case it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to grant the Appellant to make out a case before the CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order, dated 10/03/2023, passed by the CIT(A) and restore the appeal to its original number before the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh after giving the 5 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Appellant an opportunity of being heard. The Appellant is directed to file all the relevant details and documents on which the Appellant wishes to place reliance before CIT(A) forthwith on receiving the notice of hearing. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 2 raised by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes while all the other grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous.