PRAJAKTA MAHESH PATIL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETHAssessment Year : 2016-17
PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18-07-2025 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal
Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short „NFAC‟)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short „Ld. Commissioner‟) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short „the Act‟) for the AY. 2016-17. 2. In the instant case, it is observed from the impugned order that there was a delay of 184 days in filing 1stappeal before the Ld. Commissioner, on which the Assessee in Form No.35 at Column 15 has specified the reasons for delay, which read as under:
2
“I was not registered for e-filing the return of income in IT website earlier as my income was below the taxable limit and not liable to file income tax returns. I was not aware of assessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act in my case for AY. 2016-17
as I have not received any notice physically or through e-mail. I got myself registered for e-filing in the month of July, 2024. Thereafter, on 27-08-2024, I received a message in my mobile about the penalty order passed in my case. Then I came to know about the proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act already completed in my case and ex- parte order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 13-02-2024. No order in physical form or through e-mail served to me till date. Hence, I request your honour to condone the delay in filing the appeal.”
The Ld. Commissioner though considered the request of the Assessee for condonation of delay, however, not being satisfied with the same and by observing that the Assessee did not provide any substantiating documentary evidence in support of such claim and receipt of demand notice and the delay has also not been shown in Form-35 and the date of receipt of order is not supported by documentary evidence, even after being delay in filing of appeal in the hands of the Assessee, the delay cannot be condoned.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is a fact that the Assessee has duly shown the cause of delay in Form-35 at Column No. 14, but somehow the reasons stated by the Assessee remained to be considered, inadvertently or oversight. The Assessee honestly conceded its mistake for not updating the registered address on the ITB portal, however, subsequently updated the same.
Considering the reasons stated by the Assessee as genuine, bonafide and unintentional and the bonafide mistake for not updating the latest address, which resulted into causing the delay in filing of first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, we are inclined to condone the delay, however, subject to deposit of Rs. 5,500/- in the Revenue Department in “Other Heads” within 15 days of the date of receipt of this order.
3
6. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Ld.
Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine, but not on the merits of the case and, therefore, it would be appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit.
The Assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in prosecuting its proceedings and file the relevant submissions and documents. In case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-12-2025 [BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH] [NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai,
Dated: 22-12-2025
TNMM
Copy to :
1)
The Appellant
2)
The Respondent
3)
The CIT concerned
4)
The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai
5)
Guard file
By Order
Dy./Asst.