MALAN MOHAN KHADE,MUMBAI vs. JURISDICTION WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5610/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 November 2025AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 313 days in filing the appeal. The Judicial Member, while acknowledging the delay, applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities when dealing with non-deliberate delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a justifiable explanation for the delay due to her medical condition and circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was admitted for hearing on merits. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A). Considering the reasonable cause for the delay which prevented effective representation before the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the file of the AO. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent her case before the AO, with a clear direction to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision did not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Malan Mohan Khade, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated August 30, 2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was filed with a delay of 313 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing a medical condition (Lumbar Spondylosis) requiring treatment in her hometown from April 2023. She stated she was unaware of the CIT(A) order until receiving a recovery notice. The assessment for AY 2018-19 was completed on March 29, 2023, with an addition of Rs. 28,95,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed to be a homemaker with no prior taxable income and that this was her first income tax proceeding.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 313 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT is liable to be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause, specifically the assessee's medical condition and lack of awareness of the CIT(A) order, thereby invoking the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to her medical condition and subsequent treatment, which prevented her from attending to tax matters. She also stated that she was unaware of the CIT(A) order until a recovery notice was received, and upon consulting a tax counsel, she filed the appeal. She relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. to emphasize preferring substantial justice over technicalities. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Sr. DR, refuted the contents of the delay condonation application and requested its dismissal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe
For Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. DR (Virtually)
Hearing: 03.11.2025Pronounced: 04.11.2025

Date of Hearing 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

This 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, I noticed that there is delay of 313 2. days in filing the 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.

The assessment in my case for assessment year 2018-19, was completed on 29th March 2023, resulting in addition of Rs. 28,95,000/- to my income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

2.

Aggrieved by those additions I filed an appeal to the Commissioner of income tax, Appeal (CIT Appeal) on 29th September 2023.

3.

After filing the appeal, I was able to comply with my obligations in regard to tax compliances on account of my medical condition. I was diagnosed with a medical condition, Lumbar Spondylosis and hence I started undergoing treatment in my hometown Waduj, Satara from April 2023. Since then, I am located in my hometown for the treatment till date. 4. In the month of August 2025 I came to know that my appeal was disposed of by the CIT Appeal, for Assessment Year 2018- 19 on 30th August 2024, consequently the appeal was due for filing before the tribunal on or before 28th October 2024. 5. I came to know about the proceedings being dismissed in my case by the CIT Appeal when I was in receipt of a recovery notice issued in my case. 6. Being a homemaker, I never had any taxable income and was never liable to file a return of income. This is the only Income Tax proceeding which I am facing. 7. I immediately contacted my relatives/friends who advised me that a senior counsel should be consulted in this matter and to proceed with the matter further on seeking advice from him. 8. Accordingly, I consulted a tax counsel, who has now advised me to file an appeal after examining the papers of my case and has instructed his office to prepare the requisite documents for my signature and further action. 9. Only the cumulative effect, of circumstances specific to my own situation that this appeal is significantly delayed. As I affirm this affidavit the delay is around 11 months. 10. In the above circumstances I pray that the delay caused is inadvertent and deserves to be condoned. For your kindness I will remain ever obliged.

4.

On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.

5.

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 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. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.

6.

From the records, I 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 Malan Mohan Khade., Mumbai. 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 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 before AO. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

8.

Before parting, I 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.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →