ASHOK RAGHUNATH HEGDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 86 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. An affidavit in support of petition for condonation of delay has been filed. It was submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide reasons. Contents of the affidavit are as under: “a) We have filed an ITAPPEAL NO. /Mum-2026 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Department, Mumbai as confirmed by the Commissioner of Appeals NFAC Delhi, with a delay of 86 day. b) I am not an expert in the Taxation Laws, when the order was received I was under the opinion that this order is only vis a vis delay and detailed order on facts will be received in due course. With this misunderstanding neither acted on the order nor forwarded it to the consultant. c) Further, when I discussed with the consultant, he made me aware of the fact that this the final order, and it is to be appealed against, by that time the statutory time for filing the appeal before the ITAT has lapsed. d) On learning about this I started the process of the filing the appeal with the tribunal as soon as possible. We are keen to pursue the appeal. e) I have filed a petition for condonation of delay before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘ bench Mumbai. f) I say that statements made herein above are true and true to the best of my information and belief, believe in them to be true.”

Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Keeping in view the explanation furnished by the assessee and following the settled principle that a liberal approach should be adopted where sufficient cause is shown so as to advance substantial justice, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 86 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

On merits, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without granting adequate opportunity of being heard. It was submitted that only one notice was issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter the appeal was disposed of without considering the merits of the case. It was therefore prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable/adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. From the impugned order, it is evident that the appeal was disposed of ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A). The record further reveals that only one notice was issued to the assessee before passing the impugned order. In our considered opinion, the principles of natural justice require that an effective and adequate opportunity of hearing be granted to the assessee before deciding the appeal on merits.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall afford reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and thereafter decide the appeal afresh by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2026

Copy to: