ARUN KODIRAM SONDKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 22(1)(6), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH
MUMBAI
BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Arun Kodiram Sondkar
C-Wing, Room No.701
Anusuya CHS
BS Marg, Dadar
Mumbai-400 028
Vs. Assessing Officer
ITO Ward 22(1)(6)
Mumbai
PAN/GIR No.AWIPS7143Q
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Prakash Waghela
Revenue by Shri Aditya M Rai, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
19/06/2025
Date of Pronouncement
26/06/2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 16/01/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147 for the A.Y.2016-17. 2. At the outset, ld. Counsel submitted that ld. CIT (A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that appeal was delayed by 97 days. It has been stated that assessee was suffering from serious health issues during the month of March to May 2024, accordingly, appeal could not be filed by the Arun Kodiram Sonkar
2
assessee in time. Thus, in the interest of justice, it has been stated that delay of 97 days should be condoned and matter should be heard afresh by the ld. CIT (A).
3. Looking to the fact that there was bonafide and genuine reasons for not filing the appeal in time, therefore, the delay of 97 days filed before the ld. CIT (A) is condoned and matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh and in accordance with the law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to co-operate in the proceedings and substantiate his case.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th June, 2025. (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 26/06/2025 KARUNA, sr.ps
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
////
Arun Kodiram Sonkar
3
BY ORDER,
(Asstt.