INCOME TAX OFFICER-9(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BLINDING EDGE FILM PVT LTD , MUMBAI

The Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.15,30,14,877/- u/s.68. From the records it is seen that several notices were sent to the respondent-assessee to this

Another fact which has been noted that the appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 246 days. In the condonation of delay following reasons have been given:-

The Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Madam/Sir, Sub: Condonation of delay/Reasons for delay in filing appeal in the case of M/s Blinding Edge Film Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAHCB3815E) A.Y 2018-19 (ITA/8/Mum/2025). Reg. Kindly refer to the above 2. In the above-mentioned case the scrutiny report to the order of the Ld CIT(A) DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060870578(1) dated 13 02 2024 has heen submitted by the erstwhile officer (IT) 9(2)(1), Mumbar) to the office of PCIT-1, Mumbai through proper channel on 01 03 2024 However, in the said scrutiny report the then AO has misinterpreted the appeal as dismissed by Ld CIT(A) and inadvertently calculated the tax effect as nil and in view of the low tax effect he did not recommend the appeal 3. Since, there was an error in the earlier scrutiny report, the Ld PCIT 1, Mumbai vide letter dated 22 10 2024 directed to submit the revised scrutiny report. Thereafter the officer holding this charge has been transferred out and the undersigned has joined this charge on 26.11 2023 and the revised scrutiny report was submitted through proper channel on 28.11.2024. The approval of the PCIT-1 Mumbai for filing of appeal along with the Authorization Memo was received on 31.12.2024. The appeal could not be filed on 31.12.2024 due to technical reason (the screenshot of OTP received on e-mail is attached) Thereafter the appeal was filed by this office on Blinding Edge Film Pvt. Ltd. 01.01 2025. For the sake of clarity, the chronology of events has been tabulated as under:- Sr No Event of the case Date 1. CIT(A) order date 13.02.2024 2. CIT(A) order receipt date 13.02.2024 3. The AO submitted his scrutiny 01.03 2024 report through proper channel 4. The PCIT-1, Mumbai, directions 22.10.2024 received for filing revised scrutiny report 5. Revised scrutiny report submitted 28.11.2024 by the AO 6. Authorisation memo received from 31.03.2024 PCIT-1, Mumbai Office.

Appeal filed by the AO 01.01.2024 4 In view of above, for the reasons as mentioned above, it is kindly requested to condone the delay of 246 days in filing of appeal in the case of M/s Blinding Edge Film Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAHCB38158) Α.Υ.2018-19 ( ITA/8/Mum/2025). This issues with the approval of the Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Mumbai.

Admittedly, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) was received by the Assessing Officer on 13.02.2024. Yet, the Revenue’s explanation for the inordinate delay of 246 days in filing the appeal hinges upon an internal misreading of the appellate order and a subsequent change of opinion at the level of supervisory authorities. Initially, no appeal was recommended by the ld.AO, allegedly due to a mistaken understanding that the appeal had been dismissed, coupled with a perceived ‘Nil’ tax effect. This position, notably, was taken with the approval of the then PCIT. However, a revised scrutiny report was later

Such shifting stands within the Department, particularly between two senior supervisory authorities, cannot form the basis for condonation of a delay of this magnitude. Government officials, acting in discharge of their statutory duties, cannot seek refuge behind pleas of misinterpretation or administrative lapses. The machinery of the State is expected to function with institutional continuity and procedural diligence, not ad hocism. The Revenue cannot be permitted to oscillate in its decision-making and then urge the Tribunal to overlook delays caused by such internal inconsistencies. We therefore, are not persuaded to treat the aforesaid explanation as constituting ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of the law. The delay of 246 days in filing the appeal is neither reasonably explained nor justified by any bona fide circumstances. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as barred by limitation.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.