HIRALAL VASTABHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD. 41(3)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 24.05.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. At the very outset, I noticed that there is delay of 604
days in filing present appeal and in this regard assessee has filed an application for not filing the appeal within the time before the Tribunal, which is reproduced herein below:
2
Hiralal Vasthabhi Patel, Mumbai.
Submission on the direction of Hon'ble
INCOME
TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC BENCH, MUMBAI in the case of Hiralal Vastabhai Patel (PAN: AABPP6261H), AY 2014-15 in respect of hearing dated 28.10.2025. 1. The assessee has submitted before the Hon'ble ITAT that hearing notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were sent on a completely wrong email id. The assessee has claimed that only the email address talsaniya.co@gmail.com is his correct email address and rudraconsultancy185@gmail.com is completely wrong and does not belong to him.
2. In this regard, it is submitted that the assessee has made a false and wrong claim that the email id rudraconsultancy
185@gmail.com does not belong to him.
3. The following facts establishes the fact and disproves assessee's claim that even before filing his appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 25.01.2017 and also the email id after this appeal, talsaniya.co@gmail.com, the assessee had been using the email id wherein rudraconsultancy185@gmail.com : he has mentioned
(i) The assessee filed ITR for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.03.2016 in which he mentioned the email address rudraconsultancy185@gmail.com as "Email
Address(self)".
First page of assessee's ITR for A.Y. 2015-16 is attached marked as "Exhibit-A".
(ii) On 13.02.2025, for A.Y. 2014-15 (to which the instant appeal relates), The ITO-41(3)(1), Mumbai issued a recovery notice vide DIN No. ITBA/RCV/F/17/2024-25/1073222927(1) and Notice ID: 100091295707, which was duly served on the assessee at the email address rudraconsultancy185@gmail.com and the assessee has submitted his response to this notice (bearing notice reference
ID: 100091295707) on 22.02.2025. It clearly shows that the email id rudraconsultancy185@gmail.com is not wrong, but belongs to the assessee himself. Copy of the recovery notice and screenshot of assessee's communication bearing Notice ID:
100091295707 are attached marked as "Exhibit-B".
4. In view of the above facts, it is requested that the condonation application filed by the appellant to condone delay of 612 days in filing of appeal may kindly be rejected as 3
Hiralal Vasthabhi Patel, Mumbai.
the all facts mentioned therein is false. The affidavit filed by the assessee is also a false affidavit. The records in ITBA portal shows that all the above E-mail address is still used by the assessee. All the notices and orders were correctly issued by the Learned CIT(A) on the above Email address which is found to be the correct Email address of the assessee.
3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before me and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition
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 I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore
I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
4
Hiralal Vasthabhi Patel, Mumbai.
I also noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench that there was ‘sufficient cause’ which prevented the assessee to represent properly before Ld. CIT(A). 6. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the grounds afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. I further noticed that assessee had also moved an application for admission of additional ground before me since I have restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) therefore assessee is at liberty to raise any ground before the Ld. CIT(A) which shall be adjudicate by Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law. Since there was non cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a cost of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek
5
Hiralal Vasthabhi Patel, Mumbai.
any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
7. Before parting, I 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.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02/12/2025 (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Mumbai:
Dated: 02/12/2025
KRK, Sr. PS.
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order
(Asstt.