HITESH PAWANRAJ MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(5), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINHitesh Pawanraj Mehta 1st Floor, 114, RK Wadi, VP Road, Girgaon, Mumbai – 400 004 PAN – AFZPM7740K Vs ITO, Ward – 19(1)(5) Charni Road Mumbai. (Appellant)
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM.:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the A.Y 2011-12. 2. From the records, I noticed that the assessee was ex- parte before the AO and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation.
3. I have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, I
2
Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta, Mumbai.
noticed that assessee explained the reason for seeking condonation of delay before Ld. CIT(A).
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 were 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 us. Hence considering the fact that the assessee has justifiably and property explained the delay which occurred in filing the appeal the expression ‘sufficient cause’ is being liberally construed, therefore I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). Since there was non cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a cost of Rs. 2,000/- 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 AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
3
Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta, Mumbai.
Since I have already condoned the delay, therefore I restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the same on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 7. 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. 8. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/09/2025 (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Mumbai:
Dated: 23/09/2025
KRK, Sr. PS.
4
Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta, Mumbai.
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order
(Asstt.