ITECH CELLCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 12(2)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the 344-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging 'sufficient cause' due to circumstances like erroneous email IDs, changed registered office, and a director's SFIO involvement. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to present its case, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals for AY 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 against CIT(A)/NFAC orders. For AY 2010-11, assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, making a substantial addition under Section 68, and a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also passed. The appeal to the ITAT was delayed by 344 days, and the assessee had been proceeded ex-parte before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ITAT; Whether to restore the matter to CIT(A) when assessee was proceeded ex-parte.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
These three appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders respectfully 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, 2011-12 & 2012-13.
Since all the issues involved in these three appeals 2. are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly we shall take A.Y 2010-11 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, when the case was called repeatedly. From the file, I noticed that the notice of the present hearing was already issued to the assessee through RPAD and also through e-mail id. Itechcellcom11@gmail.com as per the report of registry. Since the notice was issued on the address given by the assessee and 30 days have already been lapsed from the date of issuance of notice therefore while drawing inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that service has been validly effected upon the assessee therefore considering these circumstances assessee is proceeded ex-parte.
At the outset, we noticed that the present appeal filed 4. by the assessee is time barred by 344 days and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
We most respectfully submit the following for your kind consideration:
The appellant company had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010- 11 declaring income of ₹5,90,932/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, making an addition of ₹1,28,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, which was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT(A)/NFAC. A penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) was also passed.
The appellant was desirous of pursuing the matter further. However, there has been a delay in filing the appeal / in making complete submissions before the authorities below, which occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.
One of the directors Mr Amit Singhania of the appellant company was subjected to extensive inquiry by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) in relation to M/s Max Media Communications Pvt Ltd. The said SFIO proceedings demanded continuous attention, appearance, and production of voluminous records, thereby consuming substantial time and resources of the director and the company. Importantly, till date, there has been no adverse finding, charge or outcome of the said SFIO investigation in the name of the director of the appellant company.
In addition, the communications and notices from the Income Tax Department could not be effectively responded to because:
(i) The registered email ID on the income tax portal belonged to a former employee, and hence notices/orders did not come to the notice of current management.
(ii) The registered office address on the income tax portal had been changed, and therefore physical notices were also not properly received.
5. The appellant became aware of the impugned order only during the course of statutory audit conducted by the Chartered Accountant of the company, and immediately thereafter took steps to prefer the present appeal.
It is further submitted that the business operations of the appellant company have been closed since F.Y. 2014-15, and hence the management bandwidth and resources were severely constrained during the relevant period.
In view of the above, we most humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to kindly condone the delay and admit the appeal / submissions on record, so that the matter may be adjudicated on merits in the interest of justice.
5607 & 5608/Mum/2025 Itech Cellcom Pvt Ltd,. Mumbai. 8. The appellant assures full cooperation and undertakes to produce all necessary documents and explanations in support of its case.
Prayer In light of the above bona fide reasons, genuine hardship, and absence of mala fides, the appellant prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly:
Condone the delay in filing the appeal / submissions; and Admit the same for hearing on merits in the interest of equity and justice.
Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and taking into consideration the fact that e-mail ID on the income tax portal was of former employee and assessee was not aware about the passing of the order an 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 I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the
6. I also noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A). On the contrary Ld. DR argued that appeal filed by assessee be dismised.
7. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate his claim. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Since there was non cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before Ld. CIT(A) therefore additional cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed upon the assessee. In all total cost of Rs. 10,000/- 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.
ITA 5607 & 5608/Mum/2025, A.Y 2011-12 & 2012-13
as the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to AY 2010-11 (except variance in figures) would apply ‘mutatis mutandis’ for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
