AMEX INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, both dated 15.01.2026 for A.Y. 2014-15. ITA No.3324/Mum/2026 arises from the assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), whereas ITA No.3323/Mum/2026 arises from the

Briefly stated, the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.7,110/-. The assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) on 30.08.2016 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2021. The Assessing Officer completed reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B vide order dated 29.03.2022 determining total income at Rs.10,19,80,560/- after making addition of Rs.10,19,73,450/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of alleged difference in balances of sundry creditors.

Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed on 07.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the reassessment order was passed on 29.03.2022 and was electronically served on the assessee on the same date. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 28.04.2022. Since the appeal was filed after a delay of 345 days, and according to him no satisfactory explanation was furnished, he declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating any of the grounds raised on merits.

Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. He submitted that the entire assessment proceedings were being handled by one accounts employee Shri Jinendra Doshi who left employment in March 2022. Consequently, the reassessment order dated 29.03.2022 and the subsequent penalty proceedings never came to the knowledge of the management. It was only when the assessee's bank account was attached by the Department and a copy of the attachment notice was received from the bank on

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay and therefore the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed fact is that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay of 345 days and has not adjudicated any of the grounds raised by the assessee on merits.

We find that the explanation offered by the assessee for delay is that the employee handling taxation matters had left employment and the reassessment order as well as subsequent proceedings did not come to the knowledge of the management. According to the assessee, it became aware of the reassessment proceedings only when attachment proceedings were initiated against its bank account in March 2023. Immediately thereafter, the orders were downloaded and appeals were filed. It is true that every delay is required to be explained and the law of limitation cannot be ignored. However, while considering an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority is required to adopt a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach. The object of the adjudicatory process is to decide disputes on merits rather than to terminate proceedings on technical grounds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that substantial justice deserves to be preferred over technical considerations.

Having condoned the delay, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate all grounds of appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law by passing a speaking order as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. In case of non-compliance, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record.

In the result, ITA No.3324/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.

We shall now take up the appeal arising out of penalty proceedings in ITA No.3323/Mum/2026.

The penalty appeal also came to be dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of delay in filling appeal of 169 days. The reasons given for the delay are same as in quantum appeal. The penalty proceedings arise directly from the reassessment order which is the subject matter of appeal in ITA No.3324/Mum/2026.

Since we have condoned the delay and restored the quantum appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, the impugned order passed in penalty proceedings is also set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication for

In the result, ITA No.3323/Mum/2026 is also allowed for statistical purposes.

In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.