MR. SACHIN MANOHARMAL CHOPRA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order dt. 28.01.2025 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 2010-11. 2. From the records, I noticed that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation and consequently while dismissing the application for condonation of delay, the appeal was also dismissed.
2
Mr. Sachin manoharmal Chopra., Mumbai.
I have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 4. From the records, I noticed that assessee has filed a detailed explanation thereby explaining the reason for seeking condonation of delay. Whereas on the contrary Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by revenue authorities. 5. Considering the entire factual position as explained before me to the effect that because of negligence of the consultant, the assessee may not be made to suffer 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 my 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 Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 6. Since I have condoned the delay, therefore I restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the 3 Mr. Sachin manoharmal Chopra., Mumbai.
same on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to assessee as the matter was not adjudicated by Ld.
CIT(A) on merits therefore matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/- is 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.
7. Before parting, I 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.
8. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/11/2025 (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Mumbai:
Dated: 13/11/2025
KRK, Sr. PS.
4
Mr. Sachin manoharmal Chopra., Mumbai.
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order
(Asstt.