ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CHETANKUMAR KUNDANMAL SHAH, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH
MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ACIT-23(1), Mumbai
511, 5th Floor
182/186,
Kalbadevi Road
Mumbai
PAN/GIR No.AAYPS6263R
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)

Assessee by Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Revenue by Shri Virabhadra S Mahajan
Date of Hearing
22/07/2025
Date of Pronouncement
24/07/2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 19/08/2022 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 923 days. It had been stated in the grounds that delay had happened due to process of shifting of his office from Matrumandir building to Piramal Chambers.
Chetankumar Kundanmal Shah

2
During the said shifting of office premises, certain physical files and records including those maintained for tracking the filing of appeals against judicial orders were inadvertently misplaced. Consequently, the filing of the appeal in the present case went unnoticed.
3. First and foremost, the averments made by the AO lack any semblance of a chronological narrative. There is no clarity as when the shifting of office had taken place, nor is it indicated during which period the files were purportedly unavailable. It is most concerning that the file stated to have been missing for nearly 3 years, yet no dates, indicating such disruption of the process of filing of appeal has been furnished. No credible explanation has been furnished to demonstrate any actual disruption in the process of filing the appeal within the statutory time frame. In a government setup, it is impermissible for the ld. AO to plead that the files were misplaced and on that vague assertion alone, seek condonation of delay. The statutory limit for filing of the appeals is a mandate that cannot be disregarded on such generalized or unsupported claims. Such colossal lapse in our view cannot be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as being barred by limitation.
4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 24th July, 2025. (RENU JAUHRI) (AMIT SHUKLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 24/07/2025
Chetankumar Kundanmal Shah

3
KARUNA, sr.ps

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER,

(Asstt.