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

ITA 8082/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 April 2026AY 2014-154 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders under sections 271(1)(b), 271A, and 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals on the grounds of delay, refusing to condone it as insufficient cause. The assessee argued that delay was condoned in a similar appeal for section 271(1)(c).

Held

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to explain the delay before the CIT(A). The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored for de novo adjudication.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILSHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Shri Ravi Ganatra

For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, SR. DR

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

ITAs No.8080, 8081 & 8082/Mum/2025 (A.Ys. 2014-15) 3 before the learned CIT(A) and explain the reason for not filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned orders and restore the appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after reconsideration of the assessee’s request for condonation of delay. While considering the assessee’s appeals afresh, we direct the learned CIT(A) to also take into consideration the order dated 23/07/2025 passed in the assessee’s appeal against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to update its email in the records before the learned CIT(A) so that the notice of hearing can be sent to the operational email address. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 06/04/2026 Prabhat

ITAs No.8080, 8081 & 8082/Mum/2025 (A.Ys. 2014-15) 4