MAHESH KRISHNAKANT PANDEY,GHATKOPAR WEST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27 2 2 MUMBAI , VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

The rival submissions of the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is delay of 269 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed the affidavit for explaining the cause of dealy. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that AO as well as CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order. The assessee Mahesh Krishkant Pandey appointed tax consultant to persue his assessment as well as first appeal before CIT(A). His tax and consultant, due to his old age was not able to timely response to various notices, which resulted in passing ex-parte order in confirming the action of AO. Order of CIT(A) was also sent on the e-mail of tax consultant who has not informed the assessee in time. The assessee came to know about passing of order by Ld. CIT(A) when notice of recovery of tax demand was served upon the assessee vide notice dated 10.01.2025. The assessee immediately approached the present representative and after collecting necessary documents filed the present appeal. The assessee is really interested in perusing his appeal. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed; he would suffer prejudice if he is not given opportunity to contest the case on merit. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is not going to be benefited by filing appeal belatedly; rather there are chances that delay may not be condoned and appeal may be dismissed as unadmitted. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future and in making timely compliance. On merits of the case, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that AO has also passed assessment order under section 144, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the AO with the direction to pass the order afresh.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submits that assessee is a habitual defaulter. The assessee has not contested before AO as well as before CIT(A) and again filed this appeal belatedly. The assessee has not shown any reasonable cause for condoning the delay. The assessee is relying upon self- serving story without disclosing any reasonable cause for condoning the delay. 2 Mahesh Krishkant Pandey The Ld. DR for the revenue submit that delay may not be condoned in filing appeal. In alternating and without prejudice submission, the Ld. DR for the revenue submit that in case, this bench is of the view that assessee deserve any leniency delay maybe condoned imposing a heavy cost on assessee or the assessee must furnish bank guarantee so that he may contest the proceeding before lower authority in a timely manner.