KAMAL BAPUSURYAVANSHIV,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(2)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2009-10
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2009-10, raising following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal as not maintainable without considering the factual matrix of the case and genuine reason of delay.
The Ld. CI sufficient opp arbitrary, inv and ought to b 3. The appell any of the abo 4. The appell ITAT appeal means and h Good-selves. or adjournm financial har 2. Briefly stated fa return of income el income of ₹1,82,250 statutory notices u referred to as “the 143(2) was served by the assessee. Subse issued by speed post authorities with the was provided vide le by way of affixture Assessing Officer pro under Section 144 of addition of ₹32,00,00 immovable properties K ITA
IT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal with portunity to be heard and that such dis valid and against the principles of natu be set aside.
lant craves leave to add, amend, alter, ove grounds of appeal.
lant prays that the cost of filing and pu may be granted as appellant is person had no financial capacity to file appeal be The CIT(A) order without granting any op ment is illegal and has caused rdship acts of the case are that the as lectronically on 11.08.2009 de
0/-. The case was selected fo nder the Income-tax Act, 19
Act”) were issued. The notice y way of affixture at the last kn equently, notices under Sectio t, which were returned unserve endorsement “party left”. A fi etter dated 08.12.2011, which w e. As no compliance was fo oceeded ex parte and completed f the Act by order dated 26.12.2
00/- in respect of alleged incom s.
amal Bapu Suryavanshi
2
A No. 6710/MUM/2024
hout giving smissal is ral justice or delete ursing this of limited efore Your pportunity d severe ssessee filed his eclaring a total or scrutiny and 961 (hereinafter e under Section nown address of on 142(1) were ed by the postal inal opportunity was also served orthcoming, the the assessment
2011, making an me from sale of 2.1 The assessee pr
18.03.2021, i.e., nea support of condona received the original was supplied to him promptly filed on 18
the contention, notin column 2(b) (date of o of service) also ment that a duplicate ord
CIT(A) observed that substantiate the claim suffered from an une
Section 249(3) of the sufficient cause was non-maintainable b assessee is in appeal as reproduced above.
3. Before us, the l
Book and drew atten only one notice dated pages 4–6). The asse
8), which was neith the learned CIT(A) p
K
ITA referred an appeal before the le arly ten years after the assess ation, the assessee contended l assessment order and that a only on 16.02.2021, whereafter
.03.2021. However, the learned ng that in Form No. 35 filed b order) mentioned 26.12.2011, co tioned 26.12.2011, whereas co der was received on 16.02.202
t no supporting documents we m of non-service and that, there explained delay of nearly 10 yea e Act and judicial precedents, h s demonstrated, and dismissed by order dated 23.10.2024. l before the Tribunal by way of .
learned Counsel for the assess ntion to the fact that the learne d 16.10.2024 fixing hearing on essee filed a request for adjourn er expressly rejected nor cons passed the impugned order on amal Bapu Suryavanshi
3
A No. 6710/MUM/2024
arned CIT(A) on sment order. In that he never a duplicate copy r the appeal was d CIT(A) rejected by the assessee, olumn 2(c) (date lumn 15 stated
21. The learned ere produced to efore, the appeal ars. Referring to he held that no d the appeal as Aggrieved, the f grounds raised ee filed a Paper ed CIT(A) issued
22.10.2024 (PB nment (PB page idered. Instead, n 23.10.2024—
merely a day after further opportunity.
been decided in brea the matter ought to adjudication.
4. We have carefu the material on recor the appeal filed on 1
or whether it was service of the duplica
4.1 The learned CIT with reference to e outright, largely on t
35. Further, from th respond to the notice
However, without ei further opportunity, t non-maintainable on considered opinion, a 4.2 It is a settled p done but must als
Supreme Court in St
1269) has held tha
K
ITA the scheduled hearing—withou
It was thus contended that ach of the principles of natural j o be restored to the learned C lly considered rival submission rd. The central controversy pert
8.03.2021 was time-barred by filed within limitation reckoni ate order as 16.02.2021. T(A), instead of resolving this dis vidence and material, dismiss the basis of the conflicting entr he record, it is evident that th e dated 16.10.2024 by seeking a ither disposing of that request the learned CIT(A) chose to reje n the very next day. This ap amounts to denial of reasonable principle of law that justice mu so appear to have been done tate of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani D at even administrative orders amal Bapu Suryavanshi
4
A No. 6710/MUM/2024
ut granting any the appeal had ustice, and that CIT(A) for fresh s and examined tains to whether nearly a decade ing the date of sputed question sed the appeal ries in Form No.
he assessee did an adjournment.
t or granting a ct the appeal as pproach, in our opportunity.
ust not only be e. The Hon’ble ei (AIR 1967 SC involving civil consequences must a the present case, th adjudicating the con effective opportunity unsustainable.
4.3 In these circum the order of the lear file for fresh adjudica the basis of evidenc sufficient cause exi
249(3) of the Act. If on merits, after duly that may be filed by sought to be adduced tax Rules, 1962 shall Conclusion:
4.4 In view of the allowed. Since the ap
CIT(A), grounds rela stage and require no K
ITA also conform to the rules of na he dismissal of the appeal w ndonation issue, coupled with y of hearing, renders the a mstances, we deem it appropria rned CIT(A) and restore the ma ation. The learned CIT(A) shall fi ce to be furnished by the ass sts for condonation of delay satisfied, he shall thereafter de y considering the submissions y the assessee. In case additio d, the procedure under Rule 46A l be followed.
foregoing, Ground No. 1 of t ppeal has been restored to the fil ating to merits are rendered ac adjudication.
amal Bapu Suryavanshi
5
A No. 6710/MUM/2024
atural justice. In without properly failure to grant appellate order ate to set aside atter back to his irst examine, on sessee, whether under Section ecide the appeal s and evidences onal evidence is A of the Income- the assessee is le of the learned cademic at this 5. In the result, a purposes.
Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 22/08/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
K
ITA appeal of the assessee is allowe ced in the open Court on 22/0
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu amal Bapu Suryavanshi
6
A No. 6710/MUM/2024
ed for statistical
08/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai