What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a significant delay. The assessee had previously been proceeded ex parte before the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of their appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A), violating principles of natural justice, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment.

Clotilda Hilary Coutinha vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079428875(1) dated 08-Aug-2025 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee merely by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Hexaware, without appreciating that the Department has already filed an SLP/appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said decision, and therefore the said decision has not attained finality and cannot be treated as a binding precedent.

It is humbly requested that present appeal may be filed in accordance with the CBDT's Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 as per Para 3.1h of the said Circular. The Order of the CIT(A) may kindly be vacated and the matter may be set-aside to the file of the AO for fresh assessment.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or delete any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal, if considered necessary.

Deposits were merely renewals of existing deposits and did not represent any fresh income or investment during the relevant financial year.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the appellate order without granting the appellant a proper opportunity of being heard, as no notice of personal hearing through video conference was received by the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of ₹39,75,937/-made by the Learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law and therefore liable to be deleted.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.

At the very outset, I noticed that there is a delay of approximately 137 days in filing the appeal before me. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit. Considering the entire factual position as explained in the affidavit and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [1987 AIR 1353 (SC)], wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities of a non-deliberate delay, substantial justice is to be preferred, I am of the view that the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee, who has justifiably and properly explained the delay that occurred in filing the appeal, and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before me. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

From the records, I also noticed that the assessee was proceeded ex parte before the Ld. CIT(A) and, consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the material available on record, dismissed the appeal.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee could not effectively represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A), I am of the view that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed upon the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. A copy of the receipt shall be placed on record before the 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 the proceedings.

Before parting, I wish to make it clear that my decision to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as reflecting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated independently by the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law.

Needless to mention, the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2026.

Sd/- SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 31.07.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: CLOTILDA HILARY COUTINHA, 1201, ZINNIA, VASANT OASIS, TOWER 17, MAROL MAKWANA ROAD, ANDHEHRI 1 EAST, MUMBAI-400059, MAHARASHTRA

ITO WARD 24(1)(4), 607 ROOM, 6TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL 2 CHAMBER, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

CLOTILDA HILARY COUTINHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24(1)(4), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Latest GST High Court judgments