SUSHILA DIAMONDS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT
&
SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Sushila Diamonds
B 303/304, Lake Lucerne
Lane Homes, Powai,
Mumbai - 400076
v/s.
बनाम
Income Tax Officer
Ward
19(3)(1),
Piramal
Chamber Mumbai,
Mumbai - 400012
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAKFS7138M
Appellant/अपीलार्थी
..
Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Assessee by :
None
Revenue by:
Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. AR)

Date of Hearing
14.10.2025
Date of Pronouncement
27.10.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated
03.12.2024 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”/NFAC] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 147
r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 24.05.2023 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Appellant had not made any purchases from M/s Sanyam Gems

P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2016-17
Sushila Diamonds, Mumbai

Pvt. Ltd. during the financial year 2015–16, as wrongly alleged by the Learned Assessing Officer. Since no purchases were made from the said party during the year, the question of such purchases being bogus does not arise at all. The addition of ₹50,19,070/- made on account of alleged bogus purchases is completely unfounded and must be deleted in its entirety.

2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the order under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act without issuing a draft order, which is a mandatory requirement under the Faceless
Appeal Scheme. The Appellant respectfully prays that the said order be set aside, and a fresh opportunity of being heard and to submit supporting documentary evidence be granted.
3. At the outset, it was noticed that the instant appeal is substantially delayed. In this regard, an application of the assessee requesting for condonation has been submitted onlinestating that the appeal was required to be filed on or before 01.02.2025. However, there has been a delay of 153 days in filing. It is contended that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and occurred due to the gross negligence and professional misconduct of the authorized representative who was initially handling the scrutiny assessment proceedings and appeal matters on its behalf. He was entrusted the responsibility of handling the entire assessment matter, including filing the appeal if required. Unfortunately, despite repeated follow- ups and assurances, the said professional neither informed about the adverse order passed under section 250 of the Act, nor took any steps to file the appeal within the stipulated time. It was only later, upon P a g e | 3
A.Y. 2016-17
Sushila Diamonds, Mumbai receiving subsequent communications from the Department that the assessee came to know about the order and the inaction on part of the said professional. Upon discovering the situation, he was immediately disengaged and appointed a new professional. The new representative promptly reviewed the case, prepared the necessary documents, and advised to file this appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. The delay caused is stated to be purely due to the negligence of the earlier professional, and not due to any wilful default or disregard on its part. The assessee firm has always been compliant and respectful of the procedures under the Act. Therefore, in view these facts and the principles of natural justice, it is requested to condone the delay and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits.
5. 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 unavoidable reasons and more so attributable to the earlier Counsel who failed to intimate passing of the appellate order to the assessee in time so as to take appropriate action. We do appreciate that dismissal of the appeal on account of delay would cause genuine hardship to it and also amount to taking away a substantive right of the assessee. In this P a g e | 4
A.Y. 2016-17
Sushila Diamonds, Mumbai connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon’ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land
Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And 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.” We therefore, condone the delay in filing instant appeal before us.

P a g e | 5
A.Y. 2016-17
Sushila Diamonds, Mumbai assessed the income by making an addition of Rs.50,19,070/- on account of bogus purchases made from M/s Sanyam Gems Pvt Ltd.
7. In the subsequent appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) observed that various notices/letters for hearing were issued to the assessee, but it neither filed any response nor any submissions in support of grounds of appeal. No details, documents or submissions had been provided to come to any conclusion other than those arrived at by the AO in the order. The notices had been duly served upon the assessee via e-mail. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
7.1 When the case was called up for hearing before us, it remained unattended. The ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
8. We find that the appellate order has been passed dismissing the appeal in limine on account of non-compliance by the assessee and none of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal involved have been adjudicated. Consequently, the ld.CIT(A) could not evaluate the points of consideration so as to give his own decision on objective analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

P a g e | 6
A.Y. 2016-17
Sushila Diamonds, Mumbai

P a g e | 7
A.Y. 2016-17
Sushila Diamonds, Mumbai

Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
ददनाुंक /Date 27.10.2025
Lubhna Shaikh / Steno

आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

सत्यावपि प्रवि ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.