MADANLAL MOHANLAL HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

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:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE

2. 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.

2.2 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.

3. EX-PARTE ORDER 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex - parte.

3.2 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.

3.3 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:

4. 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.

4.2 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:

5.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the order/intimation so passed, if any, is bad in law and illegal.

5.3 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.

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.

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 explain the delay, therefore, delay in filing appeal is not condoned.

Resultantly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.