SSJ SEATING SYSTEMS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal has been filed with delay of 31 days. The assessee has filled affidavit stating the reason for delay as it has filled appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi within the prescribed time ,as assessment order was passed by Assessment Unit Delhi. However, when it was realized that the jurisdiction of the appeal lies with Hon’ble ITAT, it has withdrawn the appeal from Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal and filled in the proper jurisdiction at Mumbai. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The delay in filling is accordingly, condoned.

The A.O has reopened the assessment for the reason that the assessee has sold immovable property and earned commission and interest income but has not filed return of income. The A.O in the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 has made the addition of short term capital gain and other income of Rs1,58,35,294/-. The assessee field appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with the delay of 131 days, stating the reason for delay in filling appeal as assessee could not access to the e-mail and was not aware of the assessment order. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the reason given as sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

The Ld.AR at the outset has submitted that the director of the company is carpenter and illiterate and could not access to the email during the assessment period. Subsequently, due to consistent loss decided to cease operation and close the business and did not have any supporting staff. The Ld.AR therefore contended that assessee had sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time and Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merit.

We have considered the rival submission, and perused the material on record. The A.O has made addition of entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,57,60,000/- as short term capital gain on sale of immovable property. The Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit as there was delay in filling the appeal and he did not cone the delay. We, find that there was good and sufficient reason in not filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in time , therefore Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing appeal and decided appeal on merit. We accordingly, in the interest of justice, restore the appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18th day of December, 2025 at Mumbai.