NAGRIK SAHAYYA KENDRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO(EXEMPTIONS) WARD 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai(JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(AM) Nagrik Sahayya Kendra A/1728(5) BA/482G Dyaneshwar Vidyalaya R.A. Kidwai Marg, Wadala Mumbai-400 031. Vs. IT(Exemption) Ward 2(1) Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai-40 0020. PAN : AAATN2476P
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-
The only grievance in this case of appellant is that the Additional
CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 1806 days and dismissed the appeal.
Before dismissing the appeal, no opportunity was given to explain the reason for delay, is the crux of grievance.
From the order of Addl.CIT(A), it is observed that the appeal was dismissed as the same was filed with a delay of 1806 days. The Addl.CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the appellant to explain the reasons for delay and moreover, the appeal was dismissed without discussing the case on merits, it was argued by Ld. AR of the appellant during the appeal proceedings before the ITAT.
The Ld. DR relied on the order of Ld. Addl.CIT(A).
2
4. Heard both sides. It is the cardinal principle that before deciding the appeal, the appellant should be given an opportunity to explain the reasons for delay. Moreover, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premkuar
Arjundas Luthra HUF 69 Taxmann.com 407(Mum) has held that Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal merely on delay without discussing the merits. In view of the same, the matter is remitted back to the Ld. Addl.CIT(A) to decide the matter of delay and merits afresh after giving an opportunity.
The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/05/2025. (BEENA PILLAI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated: 22/05/2025
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(