CHANDRAKANT BABALDAS PATEL,PATAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY

These two appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2018- 19 arise from the respective orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai ["learned CIT(A)"]. ITA No. 5110/Mum/2026 is directed against the order relating to the quantum proceedings, whereas ITA No. 5102/Mum/2026 relates to the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"].

At the outset, it is relevant to note that the controversy involved in the present appeals is substantially identical to the controversy considered by us in the consolidated order passed in the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2019-20. In the said order, we have considered in detail the circumstances in which the appeals came to be filed belatedly before the learned CIT(A), the explanation furnished by the assessee in support of the applications for condonation of delay, the circumstances relating to the non-communication of the assessment and penalty orders to the assessee, and the interconnection of the assessee's case with the cases of his employer and the proprietrix of M/s Mectec. On consideration of the totality of the circumstances, we had condoned the delay and restored the quantum as well as the consequential penalty appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The facts and circumstances relevant to Assessment Year 2018-19 are materially similar. The assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee arose in the backdrop of the search proceedings and the consequential proceedings U/S 153 A. The assessee had also preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly and had sought condonation of the delay. The learned CIT(A), following the reasoning adopted in the other connected appeals, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating before us, the learned Authorised Representative (“ld.AR”) submitted that the facts and circumstances concerning the delay in filing the appeal for the present assessment year are identical to Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2019-20. It was accordingly submitted that the delay deserves to be condoned for the same reasons and the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The learned Departmental Representative (“ld.DR”) relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As noted above, the issue relating to condonation of delay in the present appeal is identical to the issue considered by us in the consolidated order passed in the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2019-20.

For the detailed reasons recorded by us in the aforesaid consolidated order, which are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity, we hold that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause warranting condonation of the delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT(A). We have also held in the said order that, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee ought not to be denied an opportunity of having the substantive issues raised in the appeals adjudicated on merits merely on account of the delay in filing the appeals

The aforesaid reasoning and conclusion apply with equal force to the appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19. We, therefore, following the decision rendered by us in the consolidated order for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2019-20, condone the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19.

Consequently, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in the quantum appeal is set aside and the matter is restored to his file for adjudication afresh on merits in accordance with law. The learned CIT(A) shall adjudicate all the grounds raised by the assessee, including the legal and jurisdictional grounds, after affording reasonable and effective

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the quantum addition, the validity of the assessment, or the leviability of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All such issues are left open for adjudication by the learned CIT(A) in accordance with law. 3

In the result, the delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT(A) is condoned. The impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) are set aside and the matters are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits in accordance with law.

Accordingly, ITA No. 5110/Mum/2026 and ITA No. 5102/Mum/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.