PRAMOD LAXMAN BHOR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2), MUMBAI

The assessee though preferred first appeal before Ld. Commissioner with the delay of 674 days in filing of the same, however, despite granting various opportunities, except filing a reply on 19.8.2025 requesting for setting aside his case to the Assessing Officer, eventually made no compliance and every time asked for the adjournments as mentioned by Ld. Commissioner in para 5.3.4 of the impugned order. Thus, the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances not only rejected the appeal of the assessee on the point of limitation but also on merits.

Thus, the assessee being aggrieved has preferred instant appeal.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. The assessee before Ld. Commissioner with regard to the condonation of delay has claimed that his previous consultant never reverted the follow ups or communication with regard to the cases and the assessee came to know about passing of the impugned order only, when his bank account was frozen by the Department and upto that point he had no knowledge of the assessment proceedings. Further several communications, including notices and the assessment order as well, had been sent to the out dated e-mail address and mobile number, which were no longer active or accessible at the relevant time. As of a result, the assessee did not receive any alert or official intimation regarding assessment proceedings. As despite, several follow ups no response was received from the previous consultant, therefore the assessee approached another consultant and filed appeal before Ld. Commissioner, however, with the delay. The assessee in support of its condonation, also filed a copy of legal notice dated 5.5.2025 addressed to Ld. Chartered Accountant by Balan Narayanan & Company.

We further observe that identical issue, qua, delay of 454 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal has also been cropped up in assessee‟s own case challenging order dated 22.11.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed by the then Ld. CIT(A) and Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 24.7.2025 in has also considered identical facts for condonation of delay and ultimately on being satisfied with the reasons stated as sufficient cause, condoned the delay in filing appeal but with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- and ultimately remanded/restored the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh.

Thus, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances specifically, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 674 days in filing of appeal before Ld. Commissioner, however on the same terms, as set out by Hon'ble Company-ordinate Bench. Thus, the delay occurred before the Ld. Commissioner, is condoned subject to deposit of Rs. 5,000/- in the Revenue Department under „other head‟ within 15 days of the receipt of this order.

Coming to the merits of the case, as it clearly appears from the orders passed by the authorities below that the assessee despite affording various opportunities, specifically four times by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings and five times by Ld. Commissioner in the appellate proceedings, eventually made no compliance and before us has prayed for leniency/mercy. Considering the aforesaid conduct of the assessee, though we are inclined not to give lenient consideration to the claim of the assessee, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality and the issues involved also remains to be adjudicated in its right perspective and manner, specifically in the absence of relevant submissions and documents, thus for just and proper decision of the case, substantial justice, fair play and equitable relief, we are inclined to remand instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, but subject to cost of Rs. 5500/- to be deposited in the Revenue Department under „other heads‟ within 30 days of the receipt of this order, without claiming any deduction/exemption of the same. Suffice to say, the Ld. Commissioner shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee would be at liberty to raise grounds on legal aspects as raised before us, as well on merits already raised before Ld. Commissioner.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.

Coming to ITA No. 6551/Mum/2025. This appeal pertains to penalty order dated 23.2.2024 under section 271AAC (1) of the Act. As we have set aside the order in quantum appeal, thus in view of the above and same condition, this case is also remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, alongwith the quantum appeal, suffice to say, by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, all the appeals under consideration stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/12/2025.