MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL
MEMBER
&
SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND Prashant Pawar
1801, Jayshree CHSL, Navy
Nagar Colony, Malad West,
Mumbai-400064
v/s.
बनाम
ITO, Ward 41(3)(3),
Mumbai
BKC, Kautilya Bhavan,
Mumbai-400051

थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADPP3644C
Appellant/अपीलाथ
..
Respondent/ तवाद

Assessee by :
Shri Ajay R. Singh/ Akshay Pawar
Revenue by :
Mr. R. A. Dhyani,DR

Date of Hearing
04.02.2025
Date of Pronouncement
10.02.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The above captioned two appeals, being quantum and penalty appeals respectively, are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Learned
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),Mumbai/National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated
16.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14.Since both the appeals are interlinked, heard together, they are the sake of brevity. We fir
ITA No. 6517/Mum/20
2. The assessee in ld.CIT(A) passed the app delay in filing of appeal, w
Assessing officer erred in the ex parte order u/s 1
income at Rs. 61,00,0
61,00,000/- as income o is pleaded that The Asses may be provided and app ld. CIT(A) may be allowe the assessee.
3. Brief facts of t
144 of the Act on account
Even before the ld.CIT(A several opportunities of compliance electronically
ITA No. 6

pertaining to the same assessment being adjudicated vide this composit rst take up the quantum appeal in:
024(Quantum appeal) n various grounds of appeal has plead pellate order dismissing his appeal on without sufficient opportunity of hear n re opening the case on wrong facts a 147 r.w.s. 144 and also in determinin
000/- by treating the Fixed Depo of the assessee as unexplained money ssee further prays that the opportunity plication for condonation of delay reje ed, since the balance convenience lies he case are that the assessment order t of non compliance by the assessee b
A),there was no compliance by the a hearing accorded by him, apart fro y. The appellate authority noticed tha
P a g e | 2

6517& 6518/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2013-14
Mr. Prashant Pawar t year and te order for ded that the n account of ring. The Id.
and passing ng the total osit of Rs.
u/s 69A. It y of hearing ected by the in favour of r was passed u/s before the ld.AO.
assessee despite om making part at the appeal of the assessee was delayed days pertaining to COV observed that “for condon that the assessee was diligen cause within the contemplatio the control of the party Invo the case of Ramlal vs. Rewa C to show sufficient cause not o delay made thereafter day condoning the delay the par covered by the period betwee which the appeal is filed. It h that even after sufficient caus delay in question as a mat precedent for the exercise of sufficient cause is not pro condonation of delay has to mention that the provisions o provisions of Sec 249 of th stipulated period of limitatio that there was a "sufficient c then the appeal may be delay.”Accordingly, the ITA No. 6

d by 280 days even after excluding t
VID period. The ld.CIT(A) after takin ning the delay, it must be proved beyond th nt and was not guilty of negligence whatsoe on of the limitation provision must be a cau oking the aid of the provisions. The Hon'ble
Coalfield Ltd. AIR 196 SC 361 has held that t only for not filing the appeal on the last day by day. In other words, in showing su rty may be called upon to explain for the w en the last day prescribed for filing the app has also been held in this case that it is neces se has been shown, a party is not entitled to tter of right. The proof of a sufficient cau f the discretionary juri iction vested in th ved nothing further has to be done; th o be dismissed on that ground alone. Here of Section 5 of The Limitation Act 1961 are he Act as both the provisions stipulate th n as per provisions of the relevant Act, if th ause" for non-presenting the appeal within e admitted for hearing on merits by ld.CIT(A) did not condone th
P a g e | 3

6517& 6518/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2013-14
Mr. Prashant Pawar the delay of 124
ng into account he shadow of doubt ever. The sufficient use which is beyond
Supreme Court in the party will have y but to explain the ufficient cause for whole of the delay eal and the day on ssary to emphasize the condonation of use is a condition he Court by s.5. If he application for e, it is pertinent to parametria to the hat after expiry of he court is satisfied prescribed period, y condoning the he delay and consequently,the appeal
249(2) of the Act.
4. Before us, th the lower authorities foll ld.DR however, suppor assessee is habitually no citing reasons for the dela is, inter alia submitted th partly on account of Covi
Chartered Accountant,n assessee had to engage a neither deliberate nor wit reasons and circumstance
5. We have careful the appellate orders and section 249(2) of the Act in electronic mode within by the appellant. Further an appeal filed after the p had sufficient cause for n
The assessee failed to ci
ITA No. 6

of the assessee was dismissed in t he ld.ARs pleaded for restoration of th lowing the principles of natural justice ted the orders of authorities below on compliant. The assessee has also f ay in filing of appeal before first appel hat there was in fact delay of 402 days id related reasons and partly on accou not being conversant with tax pr another CA later.It is submitted tha th any malicious intention but on acco es beyond the control of the assessee.
lly considered the facts of the case and d also the affidavit submitted by the t, any appeal before the CIT(A) is req n 30 days of receipt of the order and r, section 249(3) provides that the CI prescribed due date if he is satisfied th not filing the appeal within the prescr ite any reasonable cause for the delay
P a g e | 4

6517& 6518/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2013-14
Mr. Prashant Pawar erms of section he appeal before e. Per contra the stating that the filed an affidavit llate authority.It s which occurred unt of the earlier roceedings. The at the delay was ount of bonafide d the contents of assessee.As per uired to be filed d demand notice
T(A) may admit hat the appellant ribed time limit.
y in filing of the appeal before the ld.CIT appeal solely on the grou not adjudicate the issues the material available on on merits is contrary to fundamental duty of the with the notices and proc this case is grossly lackin the issuance of multiple n no substantive response were adduced with regar the assessee to take any negligence and an indiff principles of natural just required to provide a re taxpayer is obligated to opportunities extended.
opportunities, the asses which not only delayed judicial system. Such unwillingness to pursue
ITA No. 6

T(A).It is also a fact that the ld.CIT(A nd of substantial delay in filing of the raised in the grounds of appeal and d n record. Such dismissal without deci o the principles of natural justice. H assessee to diligently pursue the app ceedings initiated by the Revenue auth ng as evident from the attitude of the a notices under section 250 of the Act b or explanation was submitted. No pl rd to the delay in filing of appeal as we y initiative in pursuing the appeal fference that is unacceptable. Needle tice apply both to the Revenue autho easonable opportunity of being heard o co-operate with the authorities
In the present case, despite rece ssee displayed a casual approach an d the appellate proceedings but also conduct cannot be condoned.Th e the matter actively not only disru
P a g e | 5

6517& 6518/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2013-14
Mr. Prashant Pawar
A) dismissed the e appeal and did did not examine iding the appeal
However, it is a peal and comply horities which in assessee. Despite by the ld.CIT(A), lausible reasons ell.The failure of ls reflects gross ess to state, the orities who are d and also the and utilize the eiving adequate nd indifference, o burdened the he inability or upts the judicial process but also under mechanism. In view of s attitude of the assessee necessary deterrent to en their appeals and respect law. It also emphasizes t system cannot cater to in 6. In view of ld.CIT(A) and restore t assessment order u/s 144
decide the matter on mer heard to the assessee who and make necessary c proceedings.
6.1 Considering and inordinate delay in f pursuing the appeal, we i shall be deposited to the of the receipt of this orde ld.AO.
ITA No. 6

rmines the efficient functioning of such observations, we find that the n calls for levy of cost on it. The c nsure that taxpayers act with due dilige ting the timelines and processes laid the principle that while justice must dolence or negligence on the part of th the above, we set aside the ex-par the issue to the ld.AO who also p
4 of the Act, for de novo adjudication. H rits after providing a reasonable oppo o shall duly co-operate in the assessm compliances as required by in t the assessee’s failure to make necess filing of appeal reflecting complete lac impose a cost of Rs.11,000/- on the as credit of the Income Tax Department er, and proof of payment shall be subm
P a g e | 6

6517& 6518/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2013-14
Mr. Prashant Pawar f the appellate non cooperative cost serves as a ence in pursuing down under the be ensured, the he assessee.
rte order of the passed ex parte
He is directed to ortunity of being ment proceedings the assessment sary compliance ck of diligence in ssessee. The cost t within 15 days mitted before the 7. In the result, th purposes, subject to the ITA No. 6518/Mum/20
8. The assessee w contented that the ld.CIT and dismissed the appea
Assessing officer erred in sought to have evaded opportunity of hearing m delay rejected by the ld passed order of penalty u of repeated non complia ld.CIT(A) dismissed the a appeal which remained to 9. We have al
No.6517/MUM/202
assessment, the present order no longer exists,th
Thus,the appeal is therefo

ITA No. 6

he appeal of the assessee is allowed e levy of costs as specified above.
024(Penalty appeal) with regard to dismissal of its pena
T(A) did not allow adequate opportu al on the ground of delay of 280 day n levying 100% penalty of Rs. 18,23,1
as per order u/s 144 r.w.s 147. It may be provided and application for . CIT(A) may be allowed. It is notic u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in ex parte man ance by the assessee during penalty p appeal on account of delay of 291 day o be explained by the assessee before h lready set aside the quantum ap
4(supra), restoring the issue to the appeal has become infructuous.Since here is no question of any penalty e ore, dismissed.
P a g e | 7

6517& 6518/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2013-14
Mr. Prashant Pawar for statistical alty appeal has unity of hearing ys. Besides, the 100/- on the tax is pleaded that condonation of ced that the AO nner on account proceedings.The ys in filing of the him.
ppeal in ITA
AO for de novo e the assessment existing as well.

Order pronounced i NARENDER KUMAR CH
(या यक सदय/JUDICIAL ME

Place: मुंबई/Mumbai
दनांक /Date 10.02.2025
अ नकेत संह राजपूत/टेनो
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु / CIT
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय
Mumbai
5. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

ITA No. 6

in the open court on 10.02 .2025. S
HOUDHRY
PRABHAS
MBER)
(लेखाकार सदय/ACC
त/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
t

यकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT,

स
ािपत ित //Tru
आदेशानुसार/ BY उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. R
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ ITAT
Mumbai.

P a g e | 8

6517& 6518/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2013-14
Mr. Prashant Pawar d/-
H SHANKAR
COUNTANT MEMBER ue Copy//
ORDER,