VIVEKRAMESHCHANDRA RATHOD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(4)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 315/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the factual position and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, directing the assessee to provide a fair opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was delayed. The assessee sought condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit. The assessee had also remained ex-parte before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and whether to restore the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

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

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain
For Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.03.2025Pronounced: 10.03.2025

Date of Hearing 06.03.2025 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 27.09.2024 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 2017- 18.

2.

At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay in filing the appeal before us, and in this regard assessee has 2 Vivek Ramesh Chandra Rathod, Mumbai filed application for seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit has been filed by the assessee.

3.

On the other hand Ld. DR contested the said application and relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

4.

After having heard the counsels for both the parties on this application and perusal of the record shows that because of inadvertent mistake, the appeal could not be filed within time. Therefore, considering the factual position in this case and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC) we condone the delay in filing the present appeal before us and consequently appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.

5.

After having heard the counsels on the merits of the appeal, we found from the record that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has explained the same reasons for not appearing before Ld. CIT(A) as mentioned in the accompanying application for seeking condonation of delay. Therefore we are of the view that ends of justice would be met In case the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision on merits 3 Vivek Ramesh Chandra Rathod, Mumbai 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.

6.

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.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →