FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING AND RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO P LIMITED,THANE vs. WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITAs No.8080, 8081 & 8082/Mum/2025 (A.Ys. 2014-15) 2 in turn arose from the separate penalty orders passed under section 271(1)(b), section 271A and section 271B of the Act, for the assessment year 2014-15.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A), vide separate impugned orders, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty orders passed under section 271(1)(b), section 271A and section 271B of the Acton the ground of delay.

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 23/07/2025 condoned the delay for similar reasons in filing the appeal by the assessee against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned AR submitted that since the assessee filed all the appeals against the separate penalty orders on the same date and there was a delay of equivalent period in all its appeals for identical reasons, the assessee presumed a similar order condoning the delay in filing the appeal will be passed by the learned CIT(A) in all the cases. However, vide impugned order in the present appeals, the similar grounds raised by the assessee seeking condonation of delay were rejected, considering the same not to be “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 249 of the Act.

Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case