What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and submit necessary documents.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 86 days, claiming the email notification of the order was missed. The original appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with a hearing notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the case should be remanded for a fresh adjudication.

Jupitar Industrial Works Thane… vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Shashank A. Mehta, Ld. CA, Shri Ujjawal Chavan, Ld. Sr. DR

For Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan, Ld. Sr. DR

Hearing: 25.10.2023Pronounced: 30.10.2023

Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri Shashank A. Mehta, Ld. CA Respondent/Department by : Shri Ujjawal Chavan, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per N. K. Choudhry, JM:

The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 25.01.2023 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner)’} under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

Jupitar Industrial Works 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 86 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that the impugned order was passed on 25.01.2023 by the Ld. Commissioner and the same was uploaded on the e-filing portal and sent through email as well, however, the email was missed by the Assessee and it is a fact that no physical copy of the order was sent to the Assessee. Somewhere in the mid month of May 2023 while checking the status of appeal filed on 05.12.2016, at e-filing portal, the Assessee came to know that the appeal proceedings were concluded and the impugned order has already been passed. Somehow the appellant proceedings and passing the impugned order on 25.01.2023 missed from the knowledge of the Assessee, which resulted into delay of 86 days in filing the instant appeal.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the contention raised by the Assessee with regard to the delay in filing the instant appeal, though the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has objected and refuted the claim of the Assessee, however, it is a fact that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the claim of the Assessee, therefore, considering the same as well as the tenure of delay which is minuscule, we are inclined to condone the delay of 86 days, hence, the same is condoned.

Coming to the merit of the case, we observe that the Assessee had filed an appeal on dated 05.12.2016 challenging the impugned order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Ld. ACIT, Circle-1, Thane passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. It is a fact that as it appears from the Jupitar Industrial Works impugned order that in paragraph-4 that the only notice for hearing was issued to the Assessee on 17.01.2023 which remained un- complied with by the Assessee and therefore in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in the absence of any reply and/or documents. Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and for the just decision of the case and for the ends of justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

4.1 The Assessee is also directed to appear, if requires before the Ld. Commissioner and to file the relevant documents which would be necessary for real adjudication of the case and in case of default , the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

JUPITAR INDUSTRIAL WORKS THANE,THANE vs. ACIT, CIR-1, THANE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments