MR RAJESHKUMAR MOTILAL JESHWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(3), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6693/MUM/2024Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 June 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the delay, citing the Assessee's failure to provide sufficient cause and their admission of not updating their contact information, which demonstrated negligence.

What were the facts?

The Assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 280 days, claiming the assessment order was served at their old address. The Assessee admitted to not updating their address on their PAN card and not informing the Assessing Officer of the change.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned when the Assessee failed to provide sufficient cause and was negligent in updating their address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R
Hearing: 10.06.2025Pronounced: 10.06.2025

Date of Hearing : 10.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12.

Rajeshkumar Motilal Jeshwal 2. Despite of sending notice for the date of hearing for today, the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application and therefore this Court is constrained to decide this appeal as ex-parte.

3.

At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 280 days in filing of first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, on which the Assessee had claimed that Assessment order was served on the Assessee, at his old address.

4.

The ld. commissioner rejected the said explanation by holding that with regard to the delay the Assessee contended that assessment order was served on old address, however he himself has admitted that he has failed to update latest/current address in the PAN card and did not intimate the change of address to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Ld. commissioner refused to condone the delay by relying on judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Dabra Vs Pyare Ram & Ors in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15793 of 2019, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in (2013) 14 SCC 81 regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory Rajeshkumar Motilal Jeshwal provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

5.

As the Assessee himself has admitted that he has not updated the latest address/current address in the PAN card and also not intimated change of address to the Assessing Officer and therefore this Court is of the considered view that the Ld. Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. Even otherwise, there is no material/ reason for contradicting the findings of the Ld. Commissioner in dismissing the appeal of the Assessee in limine. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves dismissal and hence the same is dismissed, however with liberty to the Assessee to seek revoking of this order by substantiating the reasons for non- appearance.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms and with the liberty granted.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.06.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →