SADASHIV RAMA KHLOKHE,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT CIRCLE-3, KAYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2658/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT\n&\nSHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 2658/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nSadashiv Rama Kalokhe\nPagadyacha Pada\nBadalpur Pipe Line Road\nPost Khoni\nKalyan - 421306\n[PAN: AYJPK6602R]\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nVs\nAsst. CIT Circle – 3, Kalyan\nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\n\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई ।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“G” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESID3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the delay occurred before the ld. CIT(A), it was incumbent upon the ld. CIT(A) to consider the affidavit and the cause of delay. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee was directed to furnish an affidavit before the ld. CIT(A) justifying the cause of delay. The ld. CIT(A) was further directed to decide the issue of condonation of delay afresh. If the ld. CIT(A) is convinced with the reasons for the delay, then the appeals are to be decided on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sadashiv Rama Kalokhe, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 2658/Mum/2025 and 2757/Mum/2025) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, for Assessment Year 2017-18. These appeals were against two separate orders dated 24/02/2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi (referred to as the ld. CIT(A)). ITA No. 2658/Mum/2025 pertained to additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) amounting to Rs. 4,22,50,000/-. ITA No. 2757/Mum/2025 concerned a penalty levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of these additions. In both cases, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals without condoning the delay in filing, which was stated to be 1383 days in one instance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, when the delay was attributable to the negligence of the assessee's counsel? Assessee's Contention: The assessee's counsel argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the negligence of the counsel and furnished an affidavit to this effect. The assessee contended that in the interest of justice and fair play, the delay should be condoned. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case. The revenue was represented by Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HONBLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A/R
Hearing: 18/06/2025Pronounced: 18/06/2025

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 2658/Mum/2025
I.T.A. No. 2757/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER \nPER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:\n\n\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nI.T.A. No. 2658/Mum/2025\nI.T.A. No. 2757/Mum/2025\n2\nI.T.A. No. 2658/Mum/2025 & two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two\nseparate orders of NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)"] dt.\n24/02/2025 pertaining to AY 2017-18.\n2.\nSince facts are interlinked, both these appeals are disposed off by\nthis common order for the sake of convenience of brevity.\n3.\nFacts of ITA No. 2658/Mum/2025; AY 2017-18, are considered.\n4.\nIt has been brought to our notice that due to delay of 1383 days in\nfiling the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay has\ndismissed this appeal. This appeal pertains to the additions made by the\nAO amounting to Rs.4,22,50,000/-.\n4.

1.

Similarly, in which is in respect of the\npenalty levied u/s 270A of the Act in respect of the additions mentioned\nhereinabove, the appeal of the assessee was late and barred by\nlimitation and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning\nthe delay.\n5.\nBefore us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished the affidavit\nstated that because of the negligence of the ld. Counsel, the appeal could\nnot be preferred in time.\n6.\nWe are of the considered view that since the delay was before the\nld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) has to consider the affidavit and the cause of\nthe delay. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we remit the\nmatter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to\nfurnish the affidavit before the ld. CIT(A) justifying the cause of delay\nand the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue of condonation of delay\nafresh and if convinced, decide the appeal on merits of the case.\n7.\nIn the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes.\n\nOrder pronounced in the Court on 18th June, 2025 at Mumbai.\nSd/-\n(SAKTIJIT DEY)\nVICE PRESIDENT\nSd/-\n(NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nMumbai, Dated 18/06/2025\n*SC SPS\n\nआदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →