MANISH MADAN RANA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

I, Mr. Manish Madan Rana, Aged 43 Years, appellant residing at 303 Zenab Palace Pooja Nagar, Rd Manthan, Naya Ngr Mirafroभायिक जाधव Thane. 2. I say that, an assessment order dated 06.03.2024 was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act and the total income was computed at Rs.43,74,750/- after the addition of Rs.37,73,848/- was made on account of cash credits u/s 68 of the Act in my case for AY 2019-20. Aggrieved by which I have filed an appeal before Id. CIT(A) on 27.03.2024. 3. I say that, during the course of appellate proceedings before Id. CIT(A), employee who was looking after the appellate proceedings in coordination with the tax consultant went to his native place in the month January 2025 due to certain medical emergency in his family. 4. I say that, the above referred employee did not came to office till June 2025 due to on-going medical treatment of his family member. 5. I say that, the mail id on which notice and intimation of assessment order was received was handled by the said employee, however due to his sudden departure for medical reasons, he inadvertently failed to inform me about any status of appellate proceedings in my case. 6. I say that, it was only in the month of July 2025, when the tax consultant has enquired about the fate of appellate proceedings it was only then when I found that an exparte CIT(A) order for AY 2019-20 has already been passed and same remained to be forwarded to tax consultant for further action. 7. I say that, it was due to above referred reasons that no action was taken by us against the CIT(A) order. I say that immediately after gaining knowledge of the CIT(A) order being passed in my case, I have approached our tax consultants who later advise us to file the appeal. Accordingly, appeal was filed before Hon'ble Tribunal on 16.07.2025 which resulted into delay of 76 days.

I say the delay in filing the appeal is purely on account of circumstances beyond my control and there was no mala fide intention or deliberate negligence on my part. 9. I say that denial of condonation of delay would cause irreparable hardship to me as I would lose the opportunity to contest the additions made, whereas if the delay is condoned, no prejudice will be caused to the Revenue. 10. I say that the facts stated hereinabove are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are set out in chronological order for kind consideration of this Hon'ble Tribunal. 11. I say that I am filing this affidavit to place the correct facts on record and to humbly request that the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same. 5. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us to the effect that the employee who was handling the mail had gone to the native village on account of medical emergency in his family 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 4 Manish Madan Rana., Mumbai.