HITESH PAWANRAJ MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 3745/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by liberally construing 'sufficient cause'. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation and directed to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to both parties.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta, challenged an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2011-12. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as it was filed beyond the period of limitation, after the assessee was ex-parte before the AO. The assessee sought condonation of this delay before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned on the grounds of 'sufficient cause' and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 S. R Lodhe

For Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, CIT DR

Hearing: 03.09.2025Pronounced: 23.09.2025

Date of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 ORDER 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.

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.

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

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.

Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta, Mumbai. 6. 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.

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.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/09/2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →