MANISH KANTILAL HARIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 2 (2) (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 6278/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 November 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)6 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities and the reasonable cause explained by the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the tribunal was filed with a significant delay of 396 days. The delay was attributed to the demise of the assessee's earlier Chartered Accountant and the assessee being a non-resident. The assessee claimed to have become aware of the assessment and appeal details only recently.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned on the grounds of the death of the CA and the assessee being a non-resident. Whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J-SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Chag (Virtually Appeared)

For Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR

Hearing: 24.11.2025Pronounced: 25.11.2025

Date of Hearing 24.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 11.06.2024 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 2016-17.

At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 2. 396 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:

Against assessment order dated 20/05/2022 for A.Y. 2016- 17, I had filed an appeal before Ld. CIT (A), 56 on 17/06/2022 with the help of my C.A.

My entire work related to income-tax matter such as computing total income, tax liability, payment of taxes, preparing and filing income-tax returns, replying and attending income-tax notices, looking after assessments, preparing and filing appeals, if required, replying and attending income-tax appeals, supervising my accounts etc. for past more than 20 years.

I personally was never aware of any of my personal income tax related matters, attending or replying notices etc. I was wholly relying upon my C.A.'s work, advices and attendance.

4. My C.A. sadly expired at relatively younger age before notices for hearing for first appeal before CIT (A) were received. In view of this, hearing notices received for appeal filed for A.Y. 2016-17 remained unattended and ex-party appellate order was passed. 5. I personally not being aware of income-tax matter and I also being out of India, had no detailed knowledge of hearing notices and notices remained unattended and ex-party appellate order was passed. 6. Sometime before, I received penalty notices for A.Y. 2016-17 for said assessment/appellate order. At that time, I became fully aware of details of such assessment/appeal, demand and penalty matter. 7. Since C.A. looking after my income-tax matter expired, I had to assign work to new C.A. after receiving penalty notices who naturally would to take some time to study and understand the case and draft documents. 8. After assigning work to new C.A. sometime back, I was appraised by him that an appeal will be required to be filed before Hon'ble ITAT against ex-party appellate order by CIT (A) for A.Y. 2016-17. Being non-resident and was out of India, recently, came to India, hence giving this affidavit now. 9. In light above referred circumstances that my C.A. looking after my Income-tax matter for past more than 20 years expired and I personally was not conversant of any Manish Kantilal Haria, Mumbai. assessment, appeal, penalty matter and I became properly aware and understood of ex- party appellate order and penalty matter recently and only thereafter, I assigned work to new C.A., there is delay in filing this appeal bona fide reasons mentioned hereinbefore which I humbly pray to condone to provide natural justice.

On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.

Considering the entire factual position as explained before us to the effect that the chartered accountant who was attending the tax matters had expired, therefore matter could not be attended before Ld. CIT(A) 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 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 before the Tribunal. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.

Manish Kantilal Haria, Mumbai. 6. From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR relied upon the reasons mentioned in the application for seeking condonation of delay which prevented the assessee to represent properly before Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

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 adequate 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 matter afresh by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/- 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 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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25/11/2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →