Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2018-19. There was a delay of 737 days in filing the appeal. The assessee claimed a sufficient cause for non-appearance before the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 737 days subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, with the assessee being granted one more opportunity to present its case with supporting documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250
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 04.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
These appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order dated 30.08.2024 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 2018-19.
At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 2. 737 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee and also the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT under identical circumstances in assessee’s own case the delay was condoned after imposing cost. The operative portion has been reproduced herein below
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for its non-appearance before the lower authorities and prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. AO.
8. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the revenue vehemently opposed to setting aside the issue back to the lower authorities for the reason that the assessee has been non-compliant before the lower authorities inspite of various opportunities provided.
9. Upon considering the rival contentions, the assessee is said to have not complied before the lower authorities and has also failed to furnish all the relevant documentary evidence before the ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A). In order to provide the assessee with one more opportunity, we deem it fit to remand this issue back to the file of ld. AO for de novo assessment. We also deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs. 25,000/- for recalcitrant attitude of the assessee in constantly not being compliant before the lower authorities and the same is to be paid to Prime Minister Relief Fund within 30 days from the receipt of this order and the proof of which has to be furnished to the ld. AO. Hence, we remand all these issues back to the file of ld. AO who is to decide the issue based on the documentary evidence proposed to be filed by the assessee in support of its claim and the assessee is also directed to strictly comply with the proceeding without any undue delay from its side. Needless it is to say that the sufficient opportunity of hearing is to be provided. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
Srusti Realmart Ltd., Mumbai.
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 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 and also while relying upon the decision of the coordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case for the A.Y: 2018-19, we condone the delay Subject to cost of Rs. 25,000/- 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.
From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before AO and Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench that there was reasonable cause as explained in the application for condonation of delay which prevented the assessee to represent properly before AO and Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
7. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that Srusti Realmart Ltd., Mumbai. there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before AO and Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case effectively before AO. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the same back to the file of AO for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 25,000/-. 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 AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.