Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
These two appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders 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 2014-15.
Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 47 3. days in filing 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:
1.0 This has reference to the Appeal preferred before Your Honor, against the Order passed U/s 250 by the Hon'ble CIT(A), ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, VADODARA dated 28-11-2024 vide DIN ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070716105(1). (Copy of Memorandum and Grounds of Appeal is Attached). 2.0 The order dated 28-11-2024 passed by the Ld CIT(A), ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, VADODARA was served on about 28-11- 2024. The Appeal before Your Honour is filed on 17th March, 2025. Hence, there is a delay of about 49 days. 3.0 The appellant most humbly and respectfully submits that the said delay is mainly on account of:- 3.1 The Appellant Firm's Managing Partner - Mr. Zubair Jagirdar is a 64 years old Senior Citizen, thus advance in age and suffering from number of age related health issues & comorbidities including Diabetes, Blood Pressure Varicose Veins ' & early onset of Parkinson's desease. Furthermore, his wife Mrs. Shabnam Jagirdar was suffering from an Autoimmune Disease - Progressive Systemic Sclerosis due to which Mr. Zubair Jagirdar could not pay attention and could not focus on the business & Tax affairs of the Appellant Firm. Tragically he suffered a catastrophic and traumatic event of loss of his wife who passed away on 16/07/2024 (DC attached), Post which the Mr. Zubair Jagirdar has been in mourning and has not been able to attend to the regular work and official matters.
3.2 Furthermore, the erstwhile professional engaged by Mr. Zubair Jagirdar who had filed the Appeal U/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the Ld CIT(A) dated 31.01.2017 had abandoned the said Appellate Proceedings. The Managing Partner Mr. Zubair Jagirdar who had entrusted the said Professional was unaware that the said erstwhile professional has not replied to any of the Notices issued U/s 250 of the Act by the Ld CIT(A). Furthermore, due to the catastrophic event of COVID- 19 and the Lockdown in the aftermath rendered Mr. Zubair Jagirdar unable to communicate with the erstwhile professional. Moreover, due to the tragic passing away of Mr. Zubair Jagirdar's wife dated 16/07/2024 he was left in shambles and emotionally distorted incapacitating him to pay attention to the work of the Appellant Firm 3.3 A separate Affidavit on oath will be filed along with all necessary documentary evidences by Mr. Zubair Jagirdar during the Appellate Proceedings to corroborate with the said contentions raised in this Request for Condonation of Delay 4.0 In view of the aforesaid bonafide and genuine circumstances and in view of the fact that the circumstances were beyond the control of the Appellant, the appellant prays that the helpless delay be kindly condoned. 5.0 This letter may kindly be treated as a sufficient compliance of our Statutory and Legal obligations. Thanking You,
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 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 & 1845/Mum/2025 Rahi Motor Transport Co. Mumbai. 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.
From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A) because of ill health of the managing partner and his wife and because of abandonment of the proceedings by the tax consultant, the assessee could 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 one more 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
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 on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No. 1845/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2014-15)
As the facts and circumstances in this appeal is identical to A.Y 2014-15 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeals also stands allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2025