RAVINDRA SADANAND MARBALLI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF

ITA 2262/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 June 2025AY 2011-2012Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2011-12 was dismissed in limine due to a 30-day delay in filing the first appeal. The original assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 144, resulting in an addition of Rs. 53.50 lakhs for the sale of immovable property, and the case was reopened under Section 147. The assessee contended the delay was unintentional, citing reasons such as being out of India, a change of address, and personal circumstances involving caring for elderly parents and an aged tax consultant.

Held

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the 30-day delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), finding it not to be intentional. As the lower authorities had not examined the case on its merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee a fair and reasonable opportunity.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's first appeal for a 30-day delay, and whether the Tribunal should condone this delay and remit the case to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits.

Sections Cited

144, 147, 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order ofld. CIT(A)07.02.2025 for A.Y. 2011-12. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 30 days in filing first appeal.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused.

The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessment was completed under section 144 on 12.12.2018. The assessee could not make compliance due to change of local address and the assessee was out of India. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal on 13.12.2019.

There was a delay of 30 days in filing fist appeal, the assessee filed application for condoning the delay. The assessee also filed application for admission of additional evidence and addition submission. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the additional evidence and remanded the matter to assessing officer for seeking his remand report. Before assessing officer, the assessee furnished requisite details during remand proceeding. However, the appeal of assessee was dismissed in limine by ld. CIT(A) by taking view that assessee has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Resultantly, appeal of assessee was dismissed as unadmitted / in limine. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in condoning appeal before ld. CIT(A) was neither intentional nor deliberate. The case of assessee was reopened under section 147. During the relevant period, assessee was out of India. The assessee was in Muscat. The assessee sold his asset / immovable property in Goregaon and purchased another housing property in Mysore, Karnataka. The parents of assessee were senior citizen and was residing in Goregaon with his brother. The old aged parent of assessee were suffering from various age related ailment. The assessee used to look after them and engaged tax consultant, Ajit Gupte Chartered Accountant (CA) who himself was also more than 70 years old. He took time to file appeal, thus there was delay of 30 days. Delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee is really interested in pursuing appeal on merit. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if his case is heard on merit. The ld. AR submits that matter may be restored back to the file of assessing officer direction to allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He undertake on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance.