What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The appeal was admitted, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed an appeal challenging an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19. There was a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned? Whether the CIT(A) should adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee?

Mamta Ramesh Shukla vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE BR BASKARANHON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Gupta

For Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. DR

Hearing: 05.03.2025Pronounced: 10.03.2025

Date of Hearing 05.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 22.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2 Mamta Ramesh Shukla, Mumbai.

At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard after going through the case file and considering the submissions of the assessee and hearing the parties 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. Therefore, keeping in view the above principles and the facts of the case we condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. Now the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.

At the very outset, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order as the assessee had not complied with any of the notices and has not submitted any details/documents/evidences in support of his grounds of appeal.

4. Whereas Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before the lower authorities and relied upon the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay for reasons of non appearance before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that because of ignorance 3 Mamta Ramesh Shukla, Mumbai. assessee could not appear before Ld. CIT(A) and relied upon one local chartered accountant who had helped him in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and assured that the additions would be deleted in appeal

After having heard both the parties and after perusal of material placed on record as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities and without going into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations, the bench is of the view that the ends of justice would be met only if the issues between the parties are decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing.

Be that as it may, keeping in view the above position in mind, we are inclined to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to prove his case before the revenue authorities. Therefore, the present appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fish adjudication by providing opportunity of hearing the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and 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 Ld.CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on 4 Mamta Ramesh Shukla, Mumbai. 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 stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.03.2025. (BR BASKARAN) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 10/03/2025 KRK, PS आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 1. ""थ" / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु"बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"ािपत "ित ////

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.

MAMTA RAMESH SHUKLA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(2)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments