HIGHPOINT PROPERTIES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1917/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2026AY 2022-235 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex parte without deciding the grounds on merits, solely due to non-appearance. The jurisdictional High Court's ruling was cited, stating that an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 86 days due to non-receipt of the CIT(A)'s order on the correct email ID. The assessee became aware of the order upon receiving a show cause notice for penalty. The ITAT condoned the delay, finding the reasons bonafide.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to non-service of the order on the correct email.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 270A,Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAVSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Shri Shashi Bekal
For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1917/Mum./2026 (Assessment Year : 2022-23) Highpoint Properties Pvt. Ltd., 41-44 SP Centre, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai - 400005 ……………. Appellant PAN : AABCH6197D v/s

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), ……………. Respondent Mumbai – 400005 Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivram Shri Shashi Bekal Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing – 11/05/2026 Date of Order – 19/05/2026

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 25/09/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2022-23.

2.

The present appeal is delayed by 86 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by an affidavit, submitting as follows: –

2 ITA No.1917/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2022-23)

“1. The Assessee was not served with the impugned order of NFAC on the correct email id spreitax@shapoorji.com which was the designated and primary email ID of the Assessee as specified in (i) Form No. 35, (ii) the primary email ID registered on the income-tax portal, and (iii) the return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 and subsequent years. 2. Assessee became aware of the impugned order of NFAC for AY 2022-23 on 02/02/2026 when Show Cause Notice for penalty under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was received by the Assessee on correct email id spreitax@shapoorji.com and Assessee visited the portal to respond to the same. 3. Assessee filed appeal on 24/2/2026 before the Hon'ble ITAT. If 02/02/2026 is taken as date of receipt of impugned order of NFAC then there is no delay in filing of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. 4. If date of the NFAC order i.e. 25/9/2025 is taken as date of receipt of the order then the last date to file the appeal was 30/11/2025 and as the appeal was filed on 24/2/2026 there was a delay of 85 days. This delay occurred as the NFAC order was not served on the correct email-address. 5. Assessee submits that the delay in filing the present appeal was for Bonafide reasons and Assessee had not being negligent. 6. I say that whatever is stated herein above is true to the best of my knowledge and I believe the same to be true.”

3.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v/s MST Katiji and others: 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well established that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal. In view of the above and having perused the application filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the limitation period and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to decide the same.

3 ITA No.1917/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2022-23)

4.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made in the Assessment Order without deciding the same on merits and without affording proper opportunity of hearing and hence the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside. 2) The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 14A rw Rule 8D of Rs. 2,84,74,193/- without appreciating that AO had not recorded any objective satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D and same was not applicable in the facts of the present case and hence the addition of Rs. 2,84,74,193/- may be deleted. 3) The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,75,68,222/- being interest paid on Inter-corporate loans claimed u/s 57(3) without appreciating that said interest is rightly claimed as a deduction u/s 57(3) and hence the disallowance of Rs. 3,75,68,222/- may be deleted. 4) The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of learned AO granting the credit for tax deducted at source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 12,032,991/- as against the TDS credit of Rs. 53,38,782/- claimed by the appellant in the return of income and therefore, has granted short credit of TDS to the extent of Rs. 41,35,791/-. 5) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned A.O. erred in computing short interest on income tax refund under section 244A of the Act. 6) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned A.O. erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act on account of under reporting of income on account of additions made in the assessment order.”

5.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte due to the non- appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now, in the appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Sr. Counsel and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. We further find that the learned CIT(A) merely on the basis of non-compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. In CIT

4 ITA No.1917/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2022-23)

v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non- prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits. We further direct that no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The learned CIT(A) is directed to issue notice to the assessee at the email address provided in Form no.35 unless the assessee changes its email address for communication, for which the assessee is directed to intimate in advance. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the hearing dates as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical 6. purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL VIKRAM SINGH YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 19/05/2026 Prabhat

5 ITA No.1917/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2022-23)

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 ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →