GOPALA HOLDING PRIVATE LIMITED,PRABHADEVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER7(1)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2948/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 July 2025AY 2011-126 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 306 days in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee had made out a reasonable cause for the delay, attributing it to the disassociation of their former accountant and lack of awareness of the NFAC's order, with no malafide intention. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471, emphasizing a liberal approach to condone delay to do substantial justice. On merits, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant evidence, and the Ld. CIT(A) was instructed to pass a detailed order after giving a proper opportunity of hearing. The grounds raised by the assessee were considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gopala Holding Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was filed with a delay of 306 days. The assessee attributed the delay to the disassociation of their former accountant, Mr. Amritlal Tiwari, who handled income tax compliances, and a lack of awareness regarding the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 11.05.2023. The NFAC's order was uploaded on the e-filing portal, and no physical copy was served. The assessee's new consultant discovered the order in March 2024. The revenue opposed the condonation of delay but agreed to a decision on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 306 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the principles laid down in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471? The assessee argued that the delay was due to the disassociation of their former accountant and lack of awareness of the NFAC's order, with no malafide intention. The revenue opposed the condonation of delay. 2. On merits, the grounds of appeal challenge the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A). Specifically, the grounds mention additions on account of alleged unexplained expenditure of Rs. 3,08,09,960 and Rs. 6,20,00,000 included in sales as unexplained income. The assessee also contended that the orders were passed without sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue on these merits-based grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain
For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT D.R
Hearing: 09.07.2025Pronounced: 16.07.2025

Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 11/05/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal :

“1. That the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.s.w.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 27.12.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the additions/disallowances made therein are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

A.Y. 2011-12 Gopala Holding Private Limited 2. That the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") have grossly erred on facts and in law in passing the orders without giving a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.s.w.147 of the Act and the additions/disallowances made therein.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and law The Learned commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred up holding the Addition made by the Ld. Assessing office erred in making addition on accounting of alleged unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,08,09,960 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and law The Learned commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred up holding the Addition made by the Ld. Assessing office erred in making addition amounting to Rs. 6,20,00,000 which was included on sales of the Appellant is also added as unexplained income on portative basis.

6. All of the above grounds of appeal

are without prejudice and are mutually exclusive to each other. 7 The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing”

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 306 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee furnished affidavit in support of the delay along with the application explaining the reasons. Scanned and reproduced is the affidavit filed by the assessee:-

“1. That I am the director of 'Gopala Holdings Private Limited'.

2.

That the Order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 11.05.2023 was passed by Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), for A.Y. 2011-12 and the same was uploaded on the e-filing portal.

A.Y. 2011-12 Gopala Holding Private Limited 3. The income tax related legal compliances was looked upon by our former accountant Mr. Amritlal Tiwari. However, Mr. Amritlal Tiwari got disassociated with the company from 20.04.2023.

4.

After his dis-association we were not aware of the stage of the appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

5.

For the above mentioned reasons we were unaware of the order being passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

6.

Additionally, no physical copy of the order was served upon us by RPAD.

7.

Then, somewhere in the month of March 2024, my new consultant checked the status of appeal proceedings on the e-filing portal and came to know about the said order. It was because of this reason, we could not file an appeal within the statutory limitation period of 60 days but was filed belatedly by around 306 days.

8.

Hence, this affidavit is being made in support of my application to the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

Whatever is stated hereinabove is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.”

2.1. From the above it is noted that, the reason that caused delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal was because the assessee was not aware of the impugned order passes by the office of Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted that the former accountant of the assessee viz. Mr. Amritlal Tiwari disassociated with the assessee since 20/04/2023 who looked after the assessee’s income tax matters. He submitted that, after his disassociation, no suitable person replaced him. For these reasons, the delay occurred and submitted that, there is no A.Y. 2011-12 Gopala Holding Private Limited malafide intention attributable to the assessee in causing the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. 2.2. On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation of delay was of the opinion that the issue should be decided on merits.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before this Tribunal.

3.

In our opinion, the assessee made out a reasonable cause for the delay that caused in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. Nothing to establish anything contrary has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. Thus there is ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 3.1 We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:- “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But A.Y. 2011-12 Gopala Holding Private Limited the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :

1. 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.” 3.2 Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the of 306 days delay caused in filing the present appeal as it is not attributable to the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal.

4. On merits of the case, in the interest of justice the appeal is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant evidences/documents in support of its claim before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a detailed order on merits after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

A.Y. 2011-12 Gopala Holding Private Limited In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/07/2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →