Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals challenging an order by the NFAC, which had upheld an addition of Rs. 9,21,000 made by the AO. The appeals were initially filed late due to a misunderstanding regarding a settlement scheme.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, applying the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal found no new evidence from the revenue to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on sufficient cause, and whether the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is justifiable.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 27.06.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19.
Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. I shall take ITA No.
621/Mum/2025, A.Y 2018-19 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called repeatedly even no application for seeking adjournment has been filed. Whereas on the contrary Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. Therefore I have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.
At the outset, I noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
“The above said Appeal was due to be filed on 25 August 2024 but due to our impression that the case will fall under DTVSV Scheme 2024 and the matter will be settled as the demand is small and in order to avoid dispute and litigation and the Legal cost involved though the additions made were not agreeable.
But however While trying to file DTVSV application the basic conditions was that there should be an appeal pending then only the scheme can be availed
And as we are not eligible to opt the DTVSV Scheme we left with no other option other than File Appeal.
Hence due to the said reason of wrong understanding we could not file the Appeal in time and therefore requested to condone the delay and admit the Appeal”.
On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
From the records, I noticed that Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee upheld the order AO and the operative portion of the Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para 5.2 and the same reproduced below:
5.2 I have carefully considered the above submission of the appellant, findings of the AO, facts of the case and noticed that the AO has given detailed findings while adding the differential amount of Rs. 9,21,000/- On the other hand it is seen that the appellant made general submission, without bringing any material evidence on record, in support of above contention, hence, not tenable and liable for rejection. In Mumbai the tenancy rights are sold at very high price, as after development/ construction of new building, the owners of the tenancy right get newly constructed flats which generally valued in crores. In view of these facts the sale rate @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per unit, as claimed by the appellant, is at very lower side hence not acceptable. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 9,21,000/-, made by the AO is hereby sustained. All the grounds of appeal are decided accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Thus after considering the facts of the present case I found that no new evidences or documents have been placed on record by the revenue to controvert or rebut the findings of Ld. CIT(A), therefore I see no reasons to interfere in to or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to for the A.Y 2018-19 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeals also stands dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2025.