UTTAM HARI MORE,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

PDF

ITA 2336/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 October 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2336/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Uttam Hari More C-1502, Lodha Luxuria Priva Balkum S.O. Thane Vs Income Tax Officer Thane - 400608 [PAN: AJGPM1210K] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Hemant Shetty, A/R Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 16/10/2025 आद1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 613 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to being a non-resident, receiving notices at an old Kolhapur address, and not being informed by relatives. The CIT(A) was not convinced by these contentions.

Held

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the delay more dispassionately, given the assessee's non-resident status and past residence in Kolhapur. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.

Sections Cited

147, 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Shetty, A/R

Hearing: 13/10/2025Pronounced: 16/10/2025

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assesse is preferred against the order dated 10/01/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2016-17. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 03/12/2023 against an ex-parte order by the AO framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The appeal was barred by limitation before the ld. CIT(A) and in his submissions in Column 15 of Form 35 stated that there was a delay of 613 days for filing of appeal being a non-resident, the assessee was not aware of the relevant provisions of the Act. The notices were received at the old address which was in Kolhapur and the relatives of the assessee did not inform 2

the assessee about the assessment order/notices. It was brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that now the assessee is residing at Thane which address is mentioned while filing the return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee pleaded for the condonation of delay. The ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the contentions of the assessee and after issuing four notices, dismissed the appeal, without admitting the same.

We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have dispassionately considered the delay in filing the appeal once the assessee has stated that he is a non-resident and earlier was residing at Kolhapur but now at Thane, the order/notices must have been sent to Kolhapur and his relatives did not inform him. Subsequently when the assessee came to know, he promptly filed the appeal. In our humble opinion, the appeal should not have been dismissed in limine, therefore, we restore the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to attend the appellate proceedings and furnish necessary details/evidence to the satisfaction of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on the merits of the case, after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.