MADANLAL MOHANLAL HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“D” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER&
MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Physical hearing)
Madanlal Mohanlal Hingad
Room No. 31 & 32, Wadi Mansion,
G.R. Road, Hindmata, Dadar,
Mumbai – 400014. [PAN: AAAPH5096B]
Vs
ACIT, CPC Cell – TDS /
ITO, Ward – 20(1)(1)
3rd Floor, Piramal Chambers,
Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012. Appellant / Assessee
Respondent / Revenue
Assessee by None
Revenue by Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
09.07.2025
Date of pronouncement
24.07.2025
Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dated 16.03.2023 for assessment year (AY) 2020-21. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURI ICTION In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, ['Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without juri iction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE
NATURAL JUSTICE 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing the appellate order.
2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed be held as bad and illegal, as the same is framed in breach of the principles of Natural Justice.
EX-PARTE ORDER 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex - parte. Modanlal Mohanlal Hingad 2
2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the non- attendance/non-reply was for the reasons not attributable to the Appellant/beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate or intentional.
3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE:
DISMISSAL AS DEFECTIVE NΟΝ - ΜΑΙΝΤΑΙΝNABLE APPEAL 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in treating the appeal as defective and, thereafter, dismissing it as non - maintainable.
2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, no such action was called for.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE:
ON MERITS 5.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no order making the Appellant liable towards interest on late payment of tax deducted at source as well as towards late filing fee u/s. 234E of the Act was called for.
2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the order/intimation so passed, if any, is bad in law and illegal.
3 Without prejudice to the above, in the alternative, assuming - but not admitting -that the Appellant was to be made liable for fee / interest, the computation of the same is not in accordance with the law, is arbitrary and excessive.
LIBERTY The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground at the time of hearing.”
None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the service of notice of hearing of appeal of more than three occasions by way of e-mail provided by assessee at the time of filing this appeal. The notice sent through registered post is returned back with the remark of postal authorities “left / building demolished”. Hence, we left no option except to hear the submission of learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue and to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record. The ld. Sr. Modanlal Mohanlal Hingad 3
DR for the revenue submits that assessee is habitual defaulter in not making compliance in time. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated
16.03.2023, however, this appeal is filed in 2025. Thus, there is inordinate delay of about two years, no application for condonation of delay in filing appeal is filed by assessee. Similarly, the order under section 200A was passed by assessing officer / ITO, TDS / CPC on 22.10.2021 and first appeal before ld. CIT(A) was filed only on 07.11.2022, thus, there was an inordinate delay even in filing first appeal. No application for condonation of delay is filed by assessee, thus, the appeal of assessee may be dismissed.
3. We have considered the submissions of learned Senior Departmental
Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue and perused the material available on record. On perusal of record, we find merit in the submission of ld. Sr. DR for the revenue that order under section 200A was passed by ACIT,
Central Processing Cell TDS on 22.10.2021. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 07.11.2022, thus, there was substantial delay. Appeal of assessee was not admitted being filed belatedly.
Thereby, appeal was dismissed in limine vide order dated 16.03.2023. Order dated 16.10.2023 was challenged before this Tribunal only on 27.01.2025. Thus, there is further delay of about 22 months in filing appeal before
Tribunal. No application for condonation of delay is filed by assessee despite issuing defect memo by the registry of this Tribunal. Despite services of notice of hearing, the assessee has not come forward either personally or through authorised representative to explain the delay or to substantiate various grounds of appeal. Considering the fact that assessee failed to Modanlal Mohanlal Hingad
4
explain the delay, therefore, delay in filing appeal is not condoned.
Resultantly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open Court on 24/07/2025 as per Rule
34 of IT(AT) Rules. PADMAVATHY S
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAWAN SINGH
JUDICIAL MEMBER
MUMBAI, Dated:24/07/2025
Biswajit
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)
The Assessee;
(2)
The Revenue;
(3)
The PCIT / CIT (Judicial);
(4)
The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5)
Guard file.
By Order