VIPIN RUPCHAND MADHANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“F” BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER&
SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Vipin Rupchand Madhani
11, Floor -4, 42, Purab
Apartment, BG Kher Marg,
Teen
Batti,
Walkeshwar,
Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400
036. Vs.
DCIT, CC – 5(4)
Kautilya Bhavan,
Mumbai – 21
PAN/GIR No. AAVPM5615N
(Applicant)
(Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Pratik Jain
Revenue by Ms. Kavitha Kaushik , Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
03.12.2025
Date of Pronouncement
04.12.2025
आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 28.02.2025 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 2021-22. 2. From the records, we noticed that there is a delay of 96 day in filing the present appeal, in this regard the assessee has 2
Vipin Rupchand Madhani , Mumbai explained the reasons which prevented him to file the appeal in time.
After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector vs MST Kitji& Others, 1987, AIR, 1353 Supreme Court 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 principles of advancing substantial justice are 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. Consequently, the application filed by the assessee for seeking condonation of the delay stands allowed. The appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.
From the records we noticed that assessee was ex-parte and it was submitted that in the group case of the assessee under identical circumstances the matter has been restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard Ld. AR relied upon the decision
3
Vipin Rupchand Madhani , Mumbai coordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Narendra Rupchand
Madhani Vs. DCIT, in ITA No. 4896/Mum/2025. 5. 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, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. 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.
4
Vipin Rupchand Madhani , Mumbai
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.12.2025 (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 04/12/2025
KRK, Sr. PS
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मुबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER,
सािपत ित ////
उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.