PANCHSHEEL HEIGHTS C & D CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)5, MUMBAI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 04.02.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2014-15.

From the records, I noticed that appeal of the assessee was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) as the same was time barred and there was inordinate delay of 1104 days in filing the appeal. In this regard Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before Ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon his submissions for condonation of delay dated 20.02.2018 filed before Ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand Ld. DR contested the said appeal and requested for dismissal of the same.

After having heard both the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities. I noticed from the records that assessee had sought condonation of delay on the ground that intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was sent on the email. As the office bearers of the assessee were ignorant about income tax, even chartered accountant who had filed the Return of Income was not responding and had left the job. It was submitted that the assessee came to know about the passing of order / intimation when they received recovery notice and the bank accounts were attached. Thereafter they approached Mr. Nitin R Goradia, Chartered Accountant who helped the assessee in income tax matters and getting the bank accounts released and also filed rectification application before the AO which was rejected and only thereafter the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was filed. Further the Ld. Ld.AR has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT Vs. Shree Aradhan Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd., 2025 (3) TMI 411 (GJ).

Considering the fact that the issues raised before Ld. CIT(A) has already been adjudicated by different judicial authorities in favour of the different assessees therefore keeping in view this fact that assessee has good case on merits and without going into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations, on the plea of the condonation of delay the bench is of the view that the ends of justice would be met only if the issues between the parties are decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.