SHRI SIDDHACHAKRA VARDHMAN TAP JAIN AYAMBILKHATA,MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRLIZED PROCESSING CENTRE , MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Ld.
Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 1, Jaipur
[hereinafter shall be referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year
2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively.

rival submissions of the parti als on record. The Ld. CIT(A) in assessment years has not admi e appeal. For ready reference fin t year 2021-22 is reproduced as the case and the grounds raised by the nsidered carefully. There is a substantia appeal for which no sufficient reason was . The appellant has failed to justify the in g appeal. From the factual position which at a conscious and considered decision w ssee at the relevant point of time for no st the impugned order. It is well-settled l ust be made between a case where the nd where the delay is of few days elay in the instant case clearly demonst was not prosecuted with due care.
on 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it is beyond the control of the party. For inv section any cause which prevents the POs within time is considered sufficie it is the test of reasonable man i s which has to be applied. The test whet sufficient is to see whether it could h he party by the exercise of due care and ds, whether it is bona fide cause, inas be deemed to be done bona fide or in g done with due care and attention. Wha se in one case may be otherwise in anot is whether it was an act of prudent or re ficient cause means that the party should egligent manner but must had acted dilig in active.
laced on the judgement on Hon'ble High
M Sri Nivasulu vs ACIT(TS-817-HC-2023(MA kra Vardhman Tap Jain
Ayambilkhata
2
152 & 3153/MUM/2025
ies and perused n the impugned itted the appeal nding of the Ld.
under:
appellant al delay in s given by n ordinate h emerges was taken ot filing of law that a e delay is only. The trates that t means a voking the a person ent cause.
in normal ther or not have been attention.
smuch as good faith at may be ther. What easonable d not have gently and h Court in MAD) dated

The appellant has failed to justify the g appeal. From the factual position which at a conscious and considered decision w ssee at the relevant point of time for no st the impugned order. It is well-settled l ust be made between a case where the nd where the delay is of few days elay in the instant case clearly demonst was not prosecuted with due care:
of a routine delay and an inordinate d reme Court in the case of Vedab ai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Babu ed in 122 Taxman 114, has made a d ays that are trivial and cases where in had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Cou he cases of trivial delays have to be however the cases of inordinate delays h cautiously. The relevant portion of the or eme Court is reproduced as under: - g discretion, under section 5 of the Limi hould adopt a pragmatic approach. A d de between a case where the delay is where the delay is of a few days. Where the consideration of prejudice to the othe nt factor so the case calls for a more in the latter case no such consideration ase deserves a liberal approach. No hard aid down in this regard."
he above detailed discussion, it is held s no "sufficient cause" in terms of section not presenting the appeal within the p well-settled law that an appellant is not tion as a matter of right. For an app existence of sufficient cause is sine qua n cedent. It is manifestly evident that this acking in this belated appeal filed by the elay in filing the appeal by the appella as sufficient cause and delay is ther ccordingly, the appeal is dismissed wi n merits or on any other aspect.
the above discussion and facts, the appe mity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) o kra Vardhman Tap Jain
Ayambilkhata
3
152 & 3153/MUM/2025
inordinate h emerges was taken ot filing of law that a e delay is only. The trates that delay, the hai alias urao Patil distinction ordinately urt further e liberally have to be rder of the itation Act distinction inordinate eas in the er side will e cautious may arise d and fast d that the n 249(3) of prescribed entitled to pellant to non and a ingredient appellant.
ant, is not refore, not thout any eal filed is of the Act, and there is n filing of the not maintain
2.1 Before us, the attention to page 14
appeal was instituted issued a notice on 24.03.2025. However in support of the ap was disposed of by t response of the asses
2.2 The learned De factual narrative as assessee.
2.3 On a careful co that the action of th principles of natura issued notice propos upon him to provid respond before decid involved condonation not only be exercised find it appropriate to CIT(A) and remand
Shri Siddhachak
ITA Nos. 31

no sufficient cause for condonation of th appeal, the present appeal is dism able.”
learned counsel for the asse
4 of the Paper Book and sub d on 12.03.2025. The learned C
17.03.2025 fixing the date r, before the assessee could file pplication for condonation of de the CIT(A) on 20.03.2025, with ssee.
partmental Representative did s submitted by the learned c onsideration of the facts, we are he learned CIT(A) is in clear al justice. Once the appellate sing to fix a date of hearing, it de the assessee a reasonable ding the issue, particularly w n of delay—a matter where jud d cautiously, but fairly. In view o o set aside the impugned order the matter back to his file f kra Vardhman Tap Jain
Ayambilkhata
4
152 & 3153/MUM/2025
e delay in missed as essee drew our mitted that the CIT(A) thereafter of hearing for e an explanation elay, the appeal hout waiting for not dispute the counsel for the e of the opinion violation of the authority had was incumbent opportunity to hen the matter dicial discretion of the above, we r of the learned for adjudication afresh. The learned including the issue o and effective opportu
3
It is further not year 2022–23 are id
Accordingly, our d mutandis to the said adjudication, we do remaining grounds ra
4. In the result, bo statistical purposes.
Order pronounced (RAHUL CHAU
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 30/07/2025
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.

////

Shri Siddhachak
ITA Nos. 31

d CIT(A) shall decide the m f condonation of delay, after affo unity of being heard to the asses ted that the facts pertaining to dentical to those in assessment directions hereinabove shall year as well. As the matter is re o not deem it necessary to aised in the appeal at this stage oth the appeals of the assessee d in the open Court on 30/07/202
/-
S
UDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu kra Vardhman Tap Jain
Ayambilkhata
5
152 & 3153/MUM/2025
matter de novo, fording adequate see.
the assessment t year 2021–22. apply mutatis estored for fresh adjudicate the .
e are allowed for 5. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai