HATMAL RIDMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &
HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hatmal Ridmal Jain
42/47, Nanubhai Desai
Road, 2nd Carpenter St,
Mumbai – 400004. Vs.
ITO – 19(1)(5)
Mumbai.
PAN/GIR No. AAGPJ5228H
(Applicant)
(Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya
Revenue by Shri Kiran Unavekar Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
13.03.2025
Date of Pronouncement
21.03.2025
आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 02.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A), for the A.Y 2012-
13. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the same was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
2
Hatmal Ridmal Jain, Mumbai
We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
From the records, we noticed that assessee has filed a detailed explanation thereby explaining the reason for seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has mentioned reasons for none compliance before the CIT(A) in affidavit as under:
The original Assessment order u/s 144r.w.s 147was passed on 28/11/2019 and the appeal against the said order before the C.I.T (APPEALS) was filed on 15th November 2023(Delay of 702
days) and the appeal against the same before the Honorable
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been filed on January, 2025. I have learnt and am aware that during the course of the proceedings various notices were issued to me on my portal namely notice dated
31/3/2019u/s
148, notice dated
16/10/2019 u/s 142(1) and final show cause notice u/s 147
dated 4/11/2019 all of which remained non complied on account of me having no knowledge about the same as I am not technically competent to understand the process.
Due to the aforesaid an ex-parte order dated 28/11/2019 was passed resulting into addition of Rs.26,02,600/- on account of unexplained expenditure.
I am a senior citizen, I am not very educated and have studied only till class 8th.
I am not at all well versed with using computers and internet and I was not aware of the income tax website.
3
Hatmal Ridmal Jain, Mumbai
I was also unaware of how to access and respond to communications sent to my registered email address:
My failure to respond to the Income Tax Department's notices or communications within the prescribed time frame was not deliberate but purely due to a lack of awareness and capability,
As soon as I came to know about the order passed by the Ld.
AO, I subsequently through my CA/Consultant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]
against the said order of the Assessing Officer.
Proceedings Before CIT(A):
That I subsequently filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] against the said order of the Assessing Officer. However, these proceedings before the CIT(A) were conducted in a faceless manner.
“That this lack of technical proficiency severely hindered my ability to navigate and respond to the electronic communications and emails received from the Department during the faceless proceedings.
During this period when the notices from the CIT(A) were sent to me, I was also suffering from medical problems.
My shop was flooded with water and major papers lying in the office premises were destroyed.
Due to the aforementioned technological and health-related challenges, and water flooding in my office, I inadvertently missed the emails and notices sent by the CIT(A).
Non-Compliance with Notices:
That due to the aforementioned technological and health-related challenges, I inadvertently missed the emails and notices sent by the CIT(A).
4
Hatmal Ridmal Jain, Mumbai
That my failure to respond to the notices was not intentional but rather due to genuine difficulties faced during this period
Appeal for Condonation:
I respectfully submit this affidavit to the Hon'ble Authority, seeking condonation of the delay of 702 days in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). I assure you that the delay was neither willful nor due to negligence but arose from circumstances beyond my understanding and capacity.
Undertaking:
I further undertake to ensure that I will comply with all statutory requirements promptly in the future and will take adequate measures to avoid any delays.
Whatever stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief’
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 & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of none deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principle of advancing substantial justice is of ‘prime importance’. Hence considering the fact that the assessee has justifiably and property explained the delay which occurred in filing the appeal the expression ‘sufficient cause’ is being liberally
5
Hatmal Ridmal Jain, Mumbai construed, therefore we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A).
6. Since we have already condoned the delay, therefore we restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.03.2025. (BR BASKARAN) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 21/03/2025
KRK, PS
6
Hatmal Ridmal Jain, Mumbai
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
सािपत ित ////
उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.