AGRIWISE FINSERV LIMITED,ANDHERI, MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(2)(1), CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“A” BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Agriwise Finserv Ltd
Unit No. 802, 8th Floor,
Sumer Plaza, Marol maroshi Road, JB Nagar,
SO, Mumbai – 400059. Vs. DCIT, Circle – 3(2)(1)
Aayakar Bhavan,
Churchgate, Mumbai –
400020. PAN/GIR No. AABCR0038F
(Applicant)

(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Bhupendra Shah
Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing
20.08.2025
Date of Pronouncement
26.08.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 07.07.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless
Appeal Centre / CIT(A), Mumbai for the assessment year 2012-
13. 2. At the outset, we noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 611 days and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:

2
Agriwise Finserv Ltd, Mumbai

Shri Amith Agarwal, Director of AGRIWISE FINSERV LIMITED having premises at 44, B High Tide Apartment, Juhu Tara road, Santacruz
West, Juhu, 400049, Maharashtra, India, do hereby declare on solemn oath and affirmation as follows:
1. That the Appellate order of NFAC, Delhi for AY 2018-19 against assessment order u/s 143(3) was served to us on 07-08-2023. We were required to file the appeal before ITAT on or before 06-10-
2023. However, there is a delay of 623 days. The delay was due to the fact that the email ID registered on the Income Tax Portal belonged to an employee who had subsequently resigned from the Company. Consequently, the said email ID was no longer in use, and the Company was not made aware of the order passed thereunder. Hence the delay by us was not intentional. Thus the late filing was due to the reasons totally beyond our control.
Looking at the above facts the necessary steps could not be taken, please take a lenient view and condone the delay.
2. This delay is wholly unintentional & beyond the control of the appellant. The word Sufficient cause' has been construed quite liberally in case of Pratap Singh [100 ITR 698 S.C.J. S.N. Ghorpade
[48 ITR 54 Mumbai].
3. The word 'Sufficient' cause is used in section 5 of the Limitation
Act, hence equally important relevance is attached to it. The Supreme Court has interpreted this phrase which is binding on all courts and Qu-asi-judicial authorities that decide condonation of delay on sufficient cause bein-g shown. Section 5 of the Limitation
Act gives the court discretion to be exercised upon the principles which are well understood by the words 'sufficient cause', which receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or want of bonafide is imputable to the appellant. [Shankutala Jain AIR 69 S.C.]
4. Recently in the case of Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh
(Supreme Court) it was held that, "Justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather than to dispose it off on such technicalities and that too at the threshold; Unless malafied are writ large on the conduct of the 3
Agriwise Finserv Ltd, Mumbai party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities. Apart from the above, the appellant would not have gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is also worth noticing that delay was also not that huge, which could not have been condoned, without putting the respondents to harm or prejudice. It is the duty of the Court to see to it that justice should be done between the parties;"
In case of MST Katji [167 ITR 471 S.C.], the S.C. enunciated the following principles;
Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold & cause of justice being defeated as against this, when the delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner.
When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side can not claim to have vested right in injustice being done, because of a non- deliberate delay.

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.
It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
5 Whatever is stated above in Para no 1 is true to my knowledge and belief;

4
Agriwise Finserv Ltd, Mumbai

6 I therefore request Your Honour to kindly condone the delay and admit the appeal as required & oblige.
Solemnly declared this 03 day of July, 2025. 3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same as there are no ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the time.

Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
Since there was non-cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed upon the assessee for delaying the proceedings which shall be deposited in the Prime
Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

6
Agriwise Finserv Ltd, Mumbai

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.08.2025. (OM PRAKASH KANT) (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated 26/08/2025

KRK, PS

आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :