VISWANATHAN VETTRI VENDHEN ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 42(3)(1), MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM Viswanathan Vettri M 108, The Retreat by Mint Homes, Senthil Nagar, Sowripalayam Road, Coimbatore – 641028. Vs. DCIT, Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai
Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M:
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated
30.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center
(NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld.
Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2019-20. 2. Though notice to the assessee for the date of hearing on today has been issued through RPAD and E-mail, however, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment, therefore, this Court is inclined to decide this appeal as ex parte by considering the orders passed by the authorities below and hearing the ld. DR.
Viswanathan Vettri
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 254 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the assessee has claimed as under: -
“The Appellant is an individual. For the Assessment Year 2019-20, the Appellant has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Mumbai, dated 30.10.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was issued on 30.10.2024. The appeal should have been filed within sixty days from the date of service of order Le on 30.12.2024. The Appellant, however, filed the appeal on 29.08.2025 Le., with a delay of 243 days.
In this regard, it is submitted that, notices u/s 250 of the Act and order were sent to the registered email ID of the Appellant. Unfortunately, due to low email storage limit, the notices and order were not served to the Appellant. In January 2025, the Appellant was planning to move to his native state Tamilnadu. The Appellant was preoccupied with relocating from Mumbai to Coimbatore and was frequently traveling between the two cities during that period. After settling in Coimbatore in March 2025, the Appellant was busy in changing the address, getting gas connection and other chores to get settled peacefully in Coimbatore.
It was only in July 2025, when the Appellant received Penalty notice in speed post, the Appellant came to know that order u/s 250 has been passed on 30.10.2024. At that point, the deadline for filing the appeal had already passed. Having relocated to Coimbatore only few months back, the Appellant lacked local contacts who could assist him with handling tax matters. Consequently, it took time to identify a legal counsel to help navigate the situation.
The Appellant consulted some tax counsels to decide the course of action. While some recommended filing an appeal before the Hon'ble
ITAT Chennai, others suggested approaching the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai.
A few counsels opined that an appeal could not be filed beyond 60 days from the date of the Hon'ble CIT's order and advised filing a writ petition in the High Court instead. The Appellant was perplexed.
Recently, the Appellant met a senior tax counsel, who advised that appeal could still be filed with Hon'ble ITAT along with a petition requesting condonation of delay and Appeal could be filed only with Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai.
Viswanathan Vettri
Hence, there was a delay of 243 days in filing the appeal.
It is once again submitted that the delay in Bling this app is only because of the The Appellant submits that there is prima facie case on merits and it would not be in interest not to file the appeal. The Appellant also submits that if the delay in filling the appeal is not condoned, he will be put to great hardship, whereas no hardship will be caused to the revenue if the delay is condoned and the appeal is decided on merits.
In view of the above facts and submissions, the Appellant sincerely prays the Hon’ble ITAT to condone the delay in filing the appeal.”
Considering the reasons stated by the assessee, as reproduced above, as reasonable, plausible and unintentional, the delay is condoned, however, subject to deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
On merit, it is observed that in this case the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 14.03.2024 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, made the addition of Rs. 33,42,459/- for non-filing of return of income by the Assessee, despite of receiving sale amount of Rs. 33,42,459/- as reflected in form no. 26AS.
The Assessee though filed 1st appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however made no compliance, despite issuing various notices and therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the assessee, confirming the order of the AO.
This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that relevant reply/submissions, which the Assessee has admittedly failed to file, are required to be considered for just and proper decision of the case and therefore for substantial justice, this Court is inclined to afford one more opportunity to the assessee being last and Viswanathan Vettri final, by remanding the instant case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submission and documents as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2025 (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai;
Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. CIT- concerned
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard File
BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt.