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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2934/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2025Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's explanation for the delay was not credible and lacked chronological clarity. The Tribunal found that the statutory limit for filing appeals is a mandate that cannot be disregarded on unsupported claims.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an assessment order, but the appeal was delayed by 923 days. The delay was attributed to the shifting of the Revenue's office and the subsequent misplacement of files.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the Revenue's appeal can be condoned based on the explanation provided for misplacement of files due to office shifting.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
For Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S Mahajan
Hearing: 22/07/2025Pronounced: 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.

1.

Chetankumar Kundanmal Shah 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →