B N INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 41(4)(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that there was a reasonable cause for the belated filing. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT which was delayed by 331 days. The delay was attributed to notices from the Ld. CIT(A) being sent to an incorrect email address, resulting in an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without the assessee's knowledge.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to non-receipt of notices. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) needs to be set aside on grounds of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN
Date of Hearing : 10-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10-03-2025 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt. 24-11-2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and it relates to AY.2014-15.
2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 331 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay. It is stated therein that the notices were issued by the Ld.CIT(A) through an e-mail ID of the earlier consultant of the assessee, viz.,“mm@mittal-associates.com”; whereas the assessee has mentioned its own e-mail ID, viz.,– “finance@bnindustries.com” in Form 35 filed before Ld CIT(A). Hence, the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) as well as the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). When the assessee carried out the limited review of its financials in December, 2024, it came to its notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has already passed the order ex-parte, wherein he has confirmed the additions made by the AO. Immediately, thereafter, the assessee has filed this appeal. Accordingly, it is stated that the delay in filing the appeal before ITAT was not intentional. Accordingly, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
2.1. We heard the Ld.DR on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the submissions made in the affidavit, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in filing this appeal belatedly before ITAT. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
We notice that the reasons given in the affidavit for filing the present appeal equally apply for non-appearance before the Ld.CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings before him. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order, we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present its case properly before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the issues in appeal. After providing adequate
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
