Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal beyond the period of limitation due to a procedural error where the appeal was filed with the Assessing Officer instead of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee explained this delay through an affidavit citing confusion regarding office locations and an acknowledgment by the ACIT's staff.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, relying on the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal with the CIT(A) was caused by a 'sufficient cause' and whether substantial justice warrants condoning the delay.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 143(3), 271(1)(c), 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& HON’BLE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT&
Date of Hearing 04.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: These present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 22.07.2025 and passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2020-21 respectively.
Since all the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly we shall take A.Y 2010-11 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
ITA No. 6058/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11
From the records, we noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation.
We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the circumstance because of which he could not file the appeal within time before the Ld. CIT(A) which are reproduced herein below:
We had received order u/s 143(3) for A.Y 2010-11 dated 2nd March 2013 on 11th March 2013 and the appeal was required to be filed on or before 9th April 2013. The appeal there against is being filed now, in the circumstances stated below; Our employee Mr. Norbert Dsouza who was responsible for filing the appeal had visited the income tax department for filing the appeal on 4th April 2013. On inquiry about the location of the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ["CIT(A)"] - 12 who was then having jurisdiction of the appeal, the PRO office at Aaykar Bhavan directed him to go to the 5th Floor. However, inadvertently instead of filing the appeal with Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 12, he filed the appeal with the Assessing Officer i.e.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ("ACIT") 6(3) on the said date i.e. 4th April 2013 [The office of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ["CIT(A)12"] and ACIT, Range 6(3) were on the same floor i.e. on 5th Floor at the relevant time]. Even the staff of the ACIT 6(3) had accepted the appeal memo in form 35 from our employee and had not directed him to file the same with CIT(A) 12. We also wish to submit that the company had also paid the appeal fees of Rs. 1,000 on 2nd April 2013 BSR code 0510308 challan no 612. [Acknowledged copy of the form 35 is enclosed] Further, in response to penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated by AO, the company vide our representative's letter dated 5th April 2013 had filed application to keep the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal by CIT(A). The copy of the form 35 [as filed with ACIT 6(3)] was also attached along with the said application. The AO had accepted our request and had kept the penalty proceedings in abeyance till date. In the above circumstances we were under the bonafide belief that the appeal had been filed with the correct jurisdiction.
Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Thus it is ordered accordingly.
Since we have already condoned the delay, in filing appeal before Ld. CIT therefore we restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
As the facts and circumstances in this appeal is identical to for the A.Y 2010-11 (except variance in days of delay) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeal also stands allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2025