M/S D B INFRATECH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE 32(1), MUMBAI

We have considered the rival submission and have perused the material on record.

On perusal of record we find that assessment was framed on the Assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act at assessed income of INR.2,46,99,950/- as against returned income of INR.1,62,47,142. In appeal preferred before CIT(A) against the aforesaid Assessment Order, no submissions/documents were filed. Resulting in dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). Being Assessment Year 2013-14 aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

We find that the order impugned by way of the present appeal was passed by the CIT(A) on 30/05/2023 and the appeal was filed by the Assessee on 18/12/2024. Though in the defect memo issued by the registry it has been stated that there was a delay of 140 days in filing the appeal, we find that the Assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay of 508 days in filing the present appeal. The Appellant has filed application seeking condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that that the delay was caused on account of inadvertent error committed by an employee of the company. Despite receiving instructions to forward the copy of the impugned order to the tax consultant for filing appeal, the employee inadvertently missed out on doing so. When the details were sought regarding the status of appeal filed against the order impugned, the management of the Assessee-firm got to know about the aforesaid mistake committed by the employee. Soon thereafter, steps were taken to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken and that the aforesaid doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner, more so in circumstances where a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late (as is the case in appeal before us). Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest Assessment Year 2013-14 that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. We note that in the present case we note that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee without returning an independent finding on merit. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had relied upon the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Marvel Industries Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai [ITA No. 779/MUM/2022, dated 19/07/2022] wherein, in somewhat similar facts and circumstances, it was held that irrespective of the non- appearance of an assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) was required to deal with the issue raised by the Assessee on merits in view of the provisions contained in Section 250(2)(a) and 250(6) of the Act. Thus, we find merit in Assessee’s plea of restoring the issues raised back to the file of CIT(A).

Taking note of the above, we condone the delay of 508 days in filing the present appeal since we are of the view that the Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the present appeal before the Tribunal in the prescribed time. Further given the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to grant the Assessee one more opportunity to advance arguments on merits of the grounds raised

In terms of above, the present appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.