JAI AMBE MANUFACTURERS LIMITED,THANE vs. CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi dated 29.01.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of delay of 257 days, without appreciating that the appellant had filed a detailed application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit of the Director explaining the reasonable and bonafide cause for such delay. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay occurred due to bona-fide professional advice that the addition made in the assessment order was tax neutral and therefore as an assessee to avoid any litigation decided not to prefer an appeal and subsequently

Jai Ambe Manufacturers Limited ITANo. 3136/Mum/2026 (AY: 2016-17) upon issuance of penalty order and further obtaining legal advice, the appellant preferred the appeal to safeguard against penalty proceedings. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on technical ground without granting any opportunity of being heard to the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and without adjudicating the issues on merits. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that re- assessment was completed under section 143(3) rws147 on 11.03.2014. The assessee did not file any appeal as there was no tax demand. The assessee was under bonafide belief that no penalty or penal consequences would follow as there is no evasion of tax. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c). On levying of penalty under section 271(1)(c), the assessee realised mistake and on legal advice filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). In the meantime, the delay 257 days occurred. The delay in filing appeal is not intentional or deliberate but due to bonafide mistake. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee was good case on merit and likely to succeed if his case was decided on merit. The ld. CIT(A) not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that on similar set of fact in Soven Trading and Investment Co. Private Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 5476/Mum/2014 on set of facts, similar delay on bonafide mistake was condoned. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that it is settled principle that when technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are kept against

Jai Ambe Manufacturers Limited ITANo. 3136/Mum/2026 (AY: 2016-17) each other may be preferred. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that as appeal of assessee was not admitted by ld. CIT(A), therefore, in all fairness matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merit. He undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) or the Revenue submits that assessee has not explained the delay properly. The assessee is relying upon self-serving statement. The delay before ld. CIT(A) may not be condoned. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and find that return of assessee was processed under section 143(1) vide intimation dated 05.08.2017. In the intimation order, no tax liability was determined. We find that on initiating penalty proceeding, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). However, there was delay of 257 days in filing appeal. The delay was not condoned by ld. CIT(A) consequent upon the appeal was not admitted. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filling appeal was not intentional but doe to bonafide belief that no penalty or any other consequences will follow and the assessee realised his mistake only when penalty was imposed. We find that on similar set of facts, Mumbai Tribunal in Soven Trading and Investment Co. Private Ltd. vs DCIT (supra), a similar delay of 174 days was condoned delay on similar facts and similar explaination. Thus, considering the facts of the present case and the decision of co-ordinate bench, we find that

Jai Ambe Manufacturers Limited ITANo. 3136/Mum/2026 (AY: 2016-17) when there was a bona fide belief that no penal or other consequences will follow, and it was a bonafide mistake in notfiling appeal in time. Thus, keeping in view the principle of law that when technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are kept against each other may be preferred. Thus, delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) is condoned. Considering the fact that we have condoned the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal by assessee on merit. In the result, the grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 09/06/2026 at the time of hearing.

/- S/- /- Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 09/06/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar / DDO ITAT, Mumbai