MR DEBRAJ SHOME,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1863/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 March 2025AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and the assessee's explanation, noting the intention to settle the dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, the assessee's claims against the previous CA were unsubstantiated.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 578 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to ignorance and reliance on his previous chartered accountant, who allegedly mishandled the case and did not inform him about the CIT(A) order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI BR BASKARAN & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Ld. D.R
Hearing: 20.03.2025Pronounced: 27.03.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.07.2022, 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. 2014-15.

2.

At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 578 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that he is a practicing doctor and wholly dependent on his chartered accountant for all the financial and tax audit matters. Earlier CA who had handled the Assessee’s scrutiny assessment, also handled the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore the Assessee was under good faith that his previous counsel/CA is handling the case properly and no decision has been made by the Ld. CIT(A) so far, however once the Assessee changed his CA due to lot of disputes and when the Income Tax Department had sent a notice for recovery demand, then only the Assessee changed his CA and contacted new CA who had brought to the notice of the Assessee that the appeal filed by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) has already been disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2022 and now the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal/ITAT can be filed. Though the Assessee agreed that his ignorance could not be believed towards the delay, however, considering the veracity of the demand raised and the fact that the case of the Assessee is factually and legally covered, but still the Assessee intends to settle the dispute amicably through VSVS, 2024 and therefore the Assessee requests the Hon’ble Tribunal to condone the said delay of 578 days in filing of the instant appeal.

3.

On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee.

4.

We have given thoughtful considerations to the reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay. The Assessee neither mentioned name of the previous counsel nor filed any document in order to substantiate his claim that lot of disputes have cropped up between the Assessee and his previous counsel/CA.

The Assessee has made bald allegation against the professional which at all is not appreciable. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as the Assessee intends to settle the dispute amicably through Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (in short “VSVS, 2024”) and in support of the contention of delay has also filed duly sworn affidavit and therefore we are inclined to condone the delay, however, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000 in the Revenue Department under “other head” within 15 days of receipt of this order. Thus, the delay of 578 days is condoned accordingly.

5.

Coming to the merits of the case, as the Assessee has opted for VSVS, 2024 in order to settle the dispute amicably and therefore prayed for withdrawal of this appeal.

6.

The Ld. D.R. did not refute the claim of the Assessee.

7.

Considering the prayer of the Assessee the appeal is liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →