LAXMAN DADARAO SURYAVANSHI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER: BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2023-24 on following grounds of appeal: 1

ITA 1594/MUM/2026 LAXMAN DADARAO SURYAVANSHI A.Y. 2023-24 1. (a) The learned CIT(A)erred in passing an order without considering the reasons given for delay in filing of an appeal and passing of an order in limine. b) The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay in filing of an appeal and dismissing the appeal. c) The learned CIT(A) ought to have passed the order considering the merits of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the followings Grounds of Appeal: 1) GROUND: WRONGLY ASSESSES U/S.144 OF THE ACT. a) The AO has wrongly passed an ex-parte order u/s.144 of the Act. b) The appellant submits that the email ID was not the functioning, the appellant did not receive any notice. a) Without prejudice to above, the appellant prays that the order pass u/s.144 be set aside as per S. 251(1)(a) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has power to set aside the matter. 2. GROUND: WRONGLY ADDED U/S 40(a)(ia) OF THE АСТ. a) On facts & Circumstance of case in and law, the AO erred in making additions u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs.28,72,09,724 though the provisions of u/s.40(a)(ia) are not applicable to the facts of the case. b) On facts & Circumstance of case in and law, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of S.40(a)(ia) of the Act though the product in which the appellant is theprovisions of S.194Q are not applicable. c) On facts & Circumstance of case in and law, the AO erred in not considering the notification as well as various judgements where it has been held that the provisions are not applicable on sale of Sim Card recharges. d) Without prejudice to above, the AO has wrongly applied the provisions on total sales without considering the sales of each party which also includes parties who turnover does not exceeds Rs.50,00,000. The additions have been made without considering these facts.

ITA 1594/MUM/2026 LAXMAN DADARAO SURYAVANSHI A.Y. 2023-24 3. GROUND: WRONGLY CHARGED INTEREST OF RS.2,58,95,562 U/S. 234B OF THE ACT 4) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in charging interest of Rs.2,58,95,562 under Section 234B of the Act. 4. GROUND: WRONGLY CHARGED INTEREST OF RS.19,205 U/S. 234C OF THE ACT On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in charging interest of Rs. 19,205 under Section 234C of the Act. 5. GROUND: WRONGLY CHARGED INTEREST OF RS.2,235 U/S. 234D OF THЕ АСТ. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in charging interest of Rs.2,235 under Section 234D of the Act. 6. GROUND: WRONGLY INITIATING PENALTY U/S.270A OF THE ACТ The AO erred in initiating Penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. 7. GROUND: WRONGLY INITIATING PENALTY U/S.272A(1)(d) OF THE ACТ The AO erred in initiating Penalty u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, cancel and or substitute any of the grounds of the appeal.

2.1. The Ld.AR submitted that the representative of the assessee who handled the case had given an email id which was not with the assessee it was submitted that the then representative left the services of assessee and therefore, the notice issued were not 3

ITA 1594/MUM/2026 LAXMAN DADARAO SURYAVANSHI A.Y. 2023-24 communicated to the assessee. It was in the month of June, 2025 that the assessee realized the need to register email id on the portal. Subsequently a new email id was registered. The ld. AR submitted that even the department was aware of the fact that the material consisting of notice were not received by the assessee and therefore, the assessment order was received by the assessee on post on 17.05.2025 through the verification unit. 2.2. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee immediately filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, it may not be construed that there was a delay in filing appeal as the assessee received the assessment order on 17.05.2025. 2.3. Ld.AR submitted that in the impugned order Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate these facts and therefore, the dismissal of technical ground as caused grave injustice to the assessee. The ld. AR thus prayed in the appeal to be decided on merits. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides and the records placed before us. 3. It is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits even though assessee reasonably caused on behalf of the assessee for not able to file the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in 167 ITR 471 has held that substantial justice deserves to be preferred over technical considerations and that a litigant ordinarily does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly. FurtherHon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7

ITA 1594/MUM/2026 LAXMAN DADARAO SURYAVANSHI A.Y. 2023-24 SCC 123 has held that, the length of delay is not material and that acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Respectfully following above we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ANKIT, PS Mumbai Dated: 14.07.2026

ITA 1594/MUM/2026 LAXMAN DADARAO SURYAVANSHI A.Y. 2023-24 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलधथी/The Appellant , 2. प्रनतवधदी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकिआयुक्त CIT 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनननध, आय.अपी.अनध., म ुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गधर्ाफधइल/Guard file. TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI