Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 28.02.2025 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A)-53 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 01.05.2023 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. Page 2 A.Y. 2021-22 Gyanchand Roopchand Madhani
The grounds of appeal are as under:
(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in in determining the income of the appellant at Rs. 52,09,050/- in the assessment order as against the income declared of Rs.50,14,610/- in the return of income.
(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer ['AO'] amounting to Rs.1,21,823/-under the head ‘Income from House Property w.r.t. Rent received from 'Reliance Infratel by considering the figure as per Form 26AS i.e. Rs.5,00,000 as against the actual figure of Rent received i.e. Rs.3,25,967/- which was reduced due to Covid-19.
(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.58,333/- on account of alleged receipt of money in the nature of Tenancy Right Transfer Fees merely on basis of conjectures and presumptions. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the above-mentioned addition of Rs. 58,333/- based on a excel sheet allegedly retrieved from the desktop of one Shri Chetan Sagar during search proceedings, despite no opportunity being given to the appellant to cross-examine the said person regarding the noting in the excel sheet. (c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the said Shri Chetan Sagar was never questioned or examined by the Assessing Officer regarding the notings of this sheet relied upon to make the addition.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer erred in not appreciating the submissions and supporting documents filed by the appellant during the Assessment proceedings.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the order u/s 250 of the Act, confirming the action of the Learned AO without affording proper opportunity of being heard which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and settled judicial precedents.
The learned Assessing Officer erred in relying upon an Excel sheet allegedly retrieved from an employee's computer system document lacking authenticity, authorship, and evidentiary value, commonly Page 3 A.Y. 2021-22 Gyanchand Roopchand Madhani referred to as a ‘dumb document'. The reliance on such unverified material, without any corroborative evidence or opportunity of rebuttal, and its subsequent confirmation by the CIT (A), is unjust, unfair, and violative of the principles of natural justice.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the charging of interest under sections 234A, 2348, 234C and 234D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the facts of the case.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset, it was noticed that the instant appeal is delayed by 96 days as the appeal was filed on 04.08.2025 as against the statutory time line expiring on 30.04.2025. In this regard, an application for condonation of delay has been submitted by the assessee stating that the Senior Accountant dealing with the matter, due to personal exigencies, could not file the appeal in time. The delay is stated to be bonafide and not intentional. In case of rejection, the assessee would suffer irreparable loss and injury and valuable opportunity of being heard on merits. It is a requested to condone the delay.
On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the present appeal was not intentional but due to certain unavoidable reasons arising due to the mistake on part of the dealing staff. Rejection of the request for condonation may cause genuine hardship to the assessee. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon'ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. KatijiAnd Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late........Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated....Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.... A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk."Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee.
Brief facts of the case as per the assessment order are that the income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 52,09,050/-,as against income of Rs.50,14,610/- declared by the assessee. The AO made additions in respect of Rental income, Short term capital gain capital gain and Tenancy right transfer fees. During the Page 5 A.Y. 2021-22 Gyanchand Roopchand Madhani course of appellate proceedings, the assessee did not comply with as many as four notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) for allowing hearing to him. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal after taking into account materials on record confirming the additions.
Before us, the ld.AR requested for remitting the appeal back to the ld.CIT(A) with an assurance to make proper compliance before him. The ld.DR did not oppose this request.
We find that the appellate order has been passed in ex-parte manner on account of non-compliance by the assessee and the issues raised in the grounds of appeal involved have been adjudicated and decided against the assessee, based on materials on record. Before us, the ld.AR has made certain submissions which could not be considered by the appellate authority on account of non-compliance by the assessee.
Considering the entirety of the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of principles of natural justice and fair play, we consider it appropriate to send the entire matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A), granting one final opportunity to the assessee to advance the arguments and submissions before him in connection with the appeal. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order and restore the entire matter back to the ld.CIT(A) Page 6 A.Y. 2021-22 Gyanchand Roopchand Madhani for passing the appellate order afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee who is also directed to attend the proceedings without fail and cooperate with him in furnishing relevant details etc. as sought by him.
In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/11/2025. [Justice (Retd. )C.V.BHADANG] PRESIDENT [PRABHASH SHANKAR] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place: मुंबई/Mumbai दिनांक / Date 10.11.2025 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/