SYED ABDUL NAFEY ARSHAD,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 1(1)(1)-MUMBAI, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH
MUMBAI
BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Syed
Abdul
Nafey
Arshad
1/63, Vijay Enclave
Near Waghbil Naka
GB Road
Thane West
Maharashtra-400615
Vs. Income
Tax
Officer
(International Taxation)
Ward – 1(1)(1), Mumbai
PAN/GIR No.ABTPA4128R
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)
Assessee by None
Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
18/11/2025
Date of Pronouncement
17/12/2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee assailing the order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–55, Mumbai, arising out of an assessment framed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. At the very threshold, it is noticed that the appeal suffers from a delay of ten days beyond the prescribed period
Syed Abdul Nafey Arshad
2
of limitation. However, no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, nor has any explanation whatsoever been furnished to demonstrate the existence of a reasonable or bona fide cause preventing the assessee from instituting the appeal within time.
It is further noted that despite issuance of repeated notices by the Registry, both through electronic mode as well as by registered post/speed post the assessee has chosen not to appear, either personally or through an authorised representative. The notices sent at the address furnished by the assessee himself in Form No. 36 have been returned unserved with the remark that no such person resides at the said address. Thus, not only has the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal diligently, but even the basic obligation of providing a correct and serviceable address has not been discharged.
The right of appeal, though a valuable statutory right, is not an unbridled one. It carries with it a corresponding duty to pursue the remedy with due care, promptitude, and sincerity. An appellant who invokes the appellate juri iction of this Tribunal cannot thereafter remain indifferent or evasive to the proceedings initiated at his own behest. The conduct of the assessee in the present case clearly reflects a complete lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.
In the absence of any application for condonation of delay, coupled with persistent non-appearance and failure to Syed Abdul Nafey Arshad
3
respond to statutory notices, we are left with no material to examine either the maintainability of the appeal or the merits of the issues raised therein. The appeal, therefore, cannot be kept pending indefinitely to await the convenience of an indifferent litigant.
Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted on account of limitation as well as for non- prosecution.
However, in the interest of substantial justice, it is clarified that liberty is reserved to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal, in accordance with law, if he is able to demonstrate before the appropriate forum that there existed sufficient and bona fide cause both for the delay in filing the appeal and for his non-appearance before the Tribunal.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th December,
2025. (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (AMIT SHUKLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 17/12/2025
KARUNA, sr.ps
Syed Abdul Nafey Arshad
4
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
BY ORDER,
(Asstt.