RUBY SAGIR AHMED SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO -41 (1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 5619/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nAND\nSMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)\nI.T.A. No. 5617/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nI.T.A. No. 5618/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nI.T.A. No. 5619/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nRuby Sagir Ahmed Shaikh Vs. ITO, Ward -41(1)(3)\nFlat No. 915/916\nMilitary Road, Marol\nLok Sarita, D-Wing\nAndheri (East)\nMumbai - 400049\n[PAN: CFZPS1107N]\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Advocate\nRevenue by Shri Annavaran Kosur4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was an admitted delay in filing all three appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). It noted that an affidavit seeking condonation of delay was furnished along with Form 35 but was ignored and not considered by the Ld. CIT(A), who passed the order without considering the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit all three appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee is directed to file the condonation petition again. The Ld. CIT(A) is instructed to consider the delay in accordance with law and pass a detailed order on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

These are three penalty appeals filed by the assessee, Ruby Sagir Ahmed Shaikh, against an order dated 18/07/2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi (referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)). The appeals pertain to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee faced a delay of 30 to 44 days in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed these appeals in limine without considering the reasons for the delay. The assessee's consultant's email and mobile number were used for portal notifications, and the consultant did not check the portal regularly. The assessee became aware of the penalty orders only upon receiving a recovery notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals in limine without considering the assessee's application for condonation of delay, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that there was a delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) due to the consultant not checking the Income Tax portal regularly, and the assessee was unaware of scrutiny notices. The assessee claimed sufficient cause for the delay and prayed for the appeals to be remitted to the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the condonation petition in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR objected to the assessee's submissions but could not controvert the arguments justifying the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Hearing: 17.11.2025Pronounced: 02.12.2025

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A. No. 5617/Mum/2025

I.T.A. No. 5618/Mum/2025

I.T.A. No. 5619/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Smt. Beena Billai, JM: Present penalty appeals filed by the assessee arise out of order dated 18/07/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2017-18.

At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that, there is delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) ranging between 30 to 44 days, in all the three appeals. He submitted that, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine without considering the circumstances under which the delay occurred. The Ld.AR placed before us the affidavit that was filed along with the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) stating that assessee was not aware of any scrutiny notice which was displayed on the Income Tax portal as the e-mail id and mobile number was of assessee’s consultant who did not check the portal at regular intervals. It was only when assessee received the recovery notice that the penalty orders having passed by Ld. CIT(A) came to her notice. He submitted that, assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Ld. CIT(A). Under such circumstances, the Ld. AR prayed that the appeal may be remitted to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the application of the assessee, in accordance with law having regard to the principles of natural justice.

1. 2.1. The Ld. DR though objected to the submission of the Ld. AR, could not controvert the arguments advanced to justify the delay in filing of appeals before Ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions advanced by both the sides in light of the records placed before us.

Admittedly, there is delay in filing of all three appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). From the paperbook filed by the assessee, we note that affidavit seeking condonation of delay was furnished along with Form 35 which was ignored and not considered. The Ld. CIT(A) passed order without considering anything on merits of the case. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remit all three appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assesse to file the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the delay, in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a detailed order on merits in accordance with law by giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee in all the appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →