SHRADDHA UNIVERSE LLP,MULUND WEST, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VASHI

Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is filed against the order of the learned CIT(A), which is an ex parte order.

Learned counsel submitted that since the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal are identical, the assessee respectfully prays that the delay of 566 days in filing the appeal be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the assessee will obey the directions of the Tribunal if the Tribunal feels it appropriate to levy a nominal cost.

On the other hand, the learned DR opposed the condonation of the delay.

Heard rival contentions and perused the reasons for the delay. The assessee has explained the reasons for the delay in its petition for condonation and the petition is also accompanied by an affidavit as under: 2 “(i) A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on the Shraddha Group during 14.05.2024 to 19.05.2024, covering 18 entities out of a 42-entity group including the Appellant, causing complete dislocation of all business, accounting, and compliance operations of the group. (ii) In the immediate aftermath, summons under Section 131 of the Act were issued to the Appellant and group entities during June to August 2024, requiring collation of voluminous records and compliance before authorized officers, consuming the entire professional bandwidth of the group. (iii) Statutory filings — ITR, Tax Audit Reports, and ROC Annual Returns — for all 42 group entities (several having disrupted records) were required to be completed in the subsequent months, consuming the entire available resources of the group. (iv) Assessment proceedings pertaining to Shraddha Landmark Private Limited, the primary flagship entity of the group, demanded the immediate and undivided attention of the group's partners, directors, and management, further extending the period of non-attention to the Appellant's own proceedings. (v) The e-filing portal and email communications of the Appellant were not being actively monitored by any responsible person owing to the complete breakdown of the administrative infrastructure post-search, as a result of which the notices and orders in the present matter went unnoticed. (vi) Simultaneously, the professional team was engaged in preparing and coordinating submissions across approximately 18 group entities and 8 contractors who had received notices and summons from officers of different jurisdictions on account of group-level allegations, placing extreme demands on the professional resources of the group. (vii) The period from July to December 2025 was occupied entirely with books closure, account finalization, and ROC Annual Return filings across group entities, compounded by quarterly audit and finalization requirements of a listed company and its subsidiary within the group, along with ongoing assessment proceedings and project-level commitments. (viii) The consultant previously handling this matter discontinued his engagement mid-way in the aftermath of the search without proper handover, resulting in the notices in the present matter going untracked. Upon discovery of this situation, fresh consultants were immediately appointed — being those currently handling the group's search matters and the present appeal. (ix) During January to March 2026, assessment orders across several group entities started materializing on a time-barring basis, requiring immediate attention and simultaneous appeal filings. The present appeal is being filed at the earliest practicable opportunity upon conclusion of that urgent exercise. 3. We respectfully submit that the delay in filing the present appeal is neither intentional, deliberate, nor willful. It is the direct and exclusive consequence of an extraordinary chain of events set in motion by the search action, compounded by the breakdown of professional representation and the cascading compliance demands across an exceptionally large group of entities. The Appellant has acted in good faith and has filed the present appeal at the earliest moment practicable. 4. We further submit that the Appellant has a strong and meritorious case on the merits of the assessment. The CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte without any examination of the additions/disallowances made in the assessment order. Non-admission of the present appeal would occasion grave and irreversible financial prejudice and hardship to the Appellant, including substantial tax demand, interest, and consequential penalty, which would be entirely disproportionate to the delay involved. 5. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS SUPPORTING LIBERAL CONDONATION The appellant respectfully relies upon the following landmark judicial precedents, which firmly establish that delays caused by genuine and compelling circumstances beyond the assessee's control must be condoned liberally, and that substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations of limitation: Citation Principle / Ratio Collector, Land The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Acquisition v. Mst. courts must adopt a liberal approach while Katiji (1987) 167 considering condonation applications. ITR 471 (SC) Substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. Refusal to condone delay results in the appeal never being heard on merits, which is a more serious injustice than condoning the delay. Improvement Trust The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that v. Ujagar Singh CA delay must be condoned unless there is No. 2395/2008 clear evidence of malafides. In the absence (SC) of malafide intent, a liberal and justice- oriented approach must be adopted, and the matter should be decided on merits. Vijay Vishin The Hon'ble Bombay High Court Meghani v. DCIT condoned a delay of 2,984 days, holding (2017) 86 that where the explanation offered by the taxmann.com 98 assessee is reasonable and there is no (Bom HC) deliberate latches or malafide intent, condonation must be granted. The length of delay, by itself, is not a ground for refusal. Vasu & Co. v. State Procedural technicalities should not be of Kerala (2002) permitted to defeat genuine justice. Courts 124 STC 124 and tribunals must look beyond technicalities to ensure that meritorious claims are not defeated on the ground of delay where the cause for delay is genuine.

Since the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte, we feel it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.