Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals challenging the orders of the NFAC/CIT(A). There was a significant delay in filing the appeals, and the assessee sought condonation of this delay by submitting an affidavit citing administrative reasons and unforeseen hurdles. The assessee also stated they were a student during the relevant period and faced issues with PAN misuse.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities, and admitted the appeal to be heard on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the condonation of delay application. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the assessee's explanation and the principle of substantial justice. Whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders dt. 06.08.2024 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 2012-13 & 2011-12.
Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
ITA No. 4530/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13
3. There is delay of 258 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
I Avinash Ashok Chavan, aged 35 years, being an individual would like to affirm and state on oath and declared as under 1- I being an individual, I looked after my Income Tax affairs and I am aware of the facts of the case and therefore, I have made this affidavit.
2- I am making this affidavit for filing before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of A.Y.2012-13 giving the reasons for delay in filing of an appeal and condonation of delay.
3- I had received the order of ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067342243(1) as on 06/08/2024, when I was in Sindhudurg.
4- The appeal was due to be filed within the prescribed time limits of 60 days from the date of receipts of the relevant order i.e. 06th Oct 2024, however, the appeal was filed belatedly on 21 June 2025, owing to administrative reasons beyond the control of the appellant.
5- The appeal filing delay was also unforeseen administrative hurdles caused the delay in preparing and filing the appeal within the statutory periods.
6- I had diligently appeared before the AO and also replied all the notice from time to time before CIT (A). It may also be stated that no Remand Report was received by the appellant to rebut the allegation made by the AO in his report. The learned CIT(A) did not provide the opportunity of giving Remand Report to me, in order to give my submission in respect of the same. Considering the above facts, the appellant request that delay in filing of an appeal may be condoned. 7- The appellant has always acted diligently and in good faith. The delay was not intentional willful but solely due to administrative circumstances. The delay is minimal and does not prejudice the respondent. 8- I therefore submit that delay in filing of an appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be condoned. 9- There was no malafide intention nor was a deliberate act to delay the matter. 10- The appellant has not in any way benefited by delaying the appeal. The appellant therefore request that the delay may be condoned and appeal may be admitted. Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and 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 and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, 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.
& 4531/Mum/2025 Avinash Ashok Chavan, Mumbai. 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 we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
On going through the case records we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) as the same was not filed within limitation and even no application for seeking condonation of delay was filed. Although the Ld. AR try to convince the Bench that there was a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that assessee is an employee and is working in private organization and during the year under consideration he was in his academic institution pursuing graduation and also the transaction in Multi Commodity Market (MCX) wrongly reported in i- taxnet which is not pertaining to the assessee and hence the Multi Commodity Market (MCX) misused my PAN card and reported the wrong transactions. It was submitted that assessee could not file his income tax return because during that period assessee was student and having no income. It was further submitted that no noticed was received by the assessee therefore assessee could not comply before the AO and before the Ld. CIT(A), in this regard an affidavit also been filed.
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. Therefore matter is restored back to Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file appropriate application for seeking condonation of delay before Ld. CIT(A) and in case such application is filed then in that eventuality the same shall be decided by Ld. 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 Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 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 Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
as the facts and circumstances in this appeal are identical to for the AY 2012-13 (except variance in figures) would apply ‘mutatis mutandis’ for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
10 . In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/09/2025