CENTRUM INFRASTRUCTURE & REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7823/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 October 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay of 578 days in filing the appeal, subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 11,000/- to the Income-tax Department within 30 days. The Tribunal held that the cause for non-receipt of notices (old email ID) was bona fide and not due to conscious indifference, and the assessee acted with promptitude upon learning of the dismissal. However, the assessee was not absolved of all responsibility due to continued oversight in not updating its correspondence address. Regarding the ex parte order, the ITAT noted that there was no representation from the assessee before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal without adjudicating the grounds on merits. To serve the interest of substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication of all grounds on merits after affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to comply strictly with all notices in the remand proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Centrum Infrastructure & Realty Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an ex parte order dated September 27, 2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was filed with a delay of 578 days. The assessee attributed the delay to the NFAC sending notices to an old, inaccessible email ID belonging to its erstwhile chartered accountant. The assessee claimed it only became aware of the dismissal and a subsequent penalty of Rs. 45,48,596/- under Section 270A upon a recovery call. A new chartered accountant was engaged, and the appeal was filed promptly, along with a connected appeal against the penalty order, which was delayed by 119 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 578 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT is liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the explanation provided by the assessee for non-receipt of notices from the CIT(A)? The assessee argued that the delay was caused by departmental notices being sent to an old email ID of its former chartered accountant, of which it had no knowledge, and that it acted promptly upon learning of the dismissal. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits? The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits due to alleged non-compliance with notices, which were not received. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS. DEBJANI MITRA NEOGY

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: C BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. DEBJANI MITRA NEOGY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 7823/MUM/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) CENTRUM DCIT 3(1)(1) INFRASTRUCTURE & AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MK REALTY LIMITED ROAD, CHURCHGATE, 2ND FLOOR, BOMBAY MUMBAI Vs. MUTUAL BLDG, DR. D. N. MUMBAI-400020, ROAD FORT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI-400001, MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of AADCC0299F Assessee:

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Ajay Soneji Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 28-Sep-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 06-Oct-2026 आदेश / ORDER

ITA 7823/MUM/2026 CENTRUM INFRASTRUCTURE & REALTY LIMITED PER SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 27th September 2024 passed by the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi (hereinafter shall be referred as learned CIT(A)) for assessment year 2018-19, on the following grounds: 1) The CIT(A) erred deciding the appeal and passing the order ex parte without deciding the grounds in appeal on merits for the reason that the Appellant has not complied with the notices issued by the CIT(A). 2) The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating grounds of appeal challenging the action of AO in making the disallowance of Rs. 72,90,669/- being the difference between interest expenses incurred by the assessee and interest income earned by the assessee. 3) The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of AO in making the addition of Rs. 69,518/- being interest on income tax refund received by the Appellant. 2. At the outset, it was seen that the Registry pointed out delay of 578 days in filing the present appeal. This appeal has been filed on 2nd July 2026 as against due date of 27th September 2024 resulting into delay of 578 days. In support of the application for condonation, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining that the email ID and phone number registered on the Income-tax portal belonged to its erstwhile chartered accountant, Shri Vipul Amodwala, through whom all departmental communications were received; that this email ID was changed with effect from 30.10.2023, but the CIT(A)'s notices , including the final notice dated 11.09.2024 , continued to be sent to the old ID, of which the assessee had no access or knowledge; and that the chartered accountant, despite having notices including the one dated 11.09.2024, delivered to that ID, failed to check it on account of preoccupation with other work, as affirmed in his own affidavit. The assessee states that it learnt of the dismissal, and of

ITA 7823/MUM/2026 CENTRUM INFRASTRUCTURE & REALTY LIMITED the consequent penalty of Rs. 45,48,596/- levied under Section 270A on 03.02.2026, only upon a recovery call received by its director in the last week of June 2026, whereupon a new chartered accountant was engaged and the present appeal filed without further delay, along with a connected appeal against the penalty order , which was delayed by 119 days.

3.

We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record on the issue of condonation of delay. The expression "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to appeals under the Act, must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, and the length of delay is not by itself decisive where the explanation does not disclose mala fides as held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)]; and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123]. At the same time, the discretion to condone is not unconditional, and a litigant who has been less than diligent cannot claim condonation as a matter of right as held in the cases of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala [(1997) 7 SCC 556]; and Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. [(2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC)].

4.

On a consideration of the explanation, we find that the underlying cause i.e. non-receipt of notices at an email ID that had ceased to be current, is bona fide and not a case of conscious indifference to the proceedings; the assessee acted with reasonable promptitude once it learnt of the dismissal. At the same time, the assessee cannot be absolved of all responsibility,

ITA 7823/MUM/2026 CENTRUM INFRASTRUCTURE & REALTY LIMITED inasmuch as it continued, over successive assessment years, to leave its statutory correspondence address unchanged and uncorrected on the Department's record despite having switched its email ID for its own purposes, and some degree of continuing oversight on its part cannot be ruled out. The explanation is, accordingly, neither so deficient as to be rejected outright nor so complete as to warrant unconditional condonation. We therefore condone the delay of 578 days in filing the present appeal, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 11,000/- by the assessee to the credit of the Income-tax Department, under the head "Other Receipts," within 30 days of receipt of this order.

5.

As far as merit of addition is concerned, there was no representation was made on the part of the assessee before the learned CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal ex parte without adjudicating the grounds on merits, and the assessee has now placed on record its explanation for the earlier non-compliance by way the affidavit, we are of the view that the interest of substantial justice warrants one further opportunity being afforded to it, rather than a decision by this Tribunal on merits in the first instance. Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file for fresh adjudication of all the grounds on merits, in accordance with law, after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to comply strictly with all notices that may be issued in the remand proceedings, and the learned CIT(A) shall satisfy himself that the costs directed above have been paid before proceeding to decide the appeal afresh.

ITA 7823/MUM/2026 CENTRUM INFRASTRUCTURE & REALTY LIMITED

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/10/2026. Sd/- Sd/- DEBJANI MITRA NEOGY OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 06/10/2026 Saumya , Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai ABHINAV Digitally signed by 5. Guard file. ABHINAV ANANT ANANT GAVANDE Date: 2026.10.13 BY ORDER, GAVANDE 15:45:37 +05'30' //True Copy// (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 →