Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the CIT(A). There was a delay of 234 days in filing the appeal due to the assessee's consultant suffering from illness. The assessee stated that the delay was bonafide and not intentional.
Held
The tribunal condoned the delay after being satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee. It was observed that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal without properly considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the case.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre- Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.CIT’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirming the M/s. Nanshi Export Private Limited action of the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. action of the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. action of the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. 147 of the Income Tax Act.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirming the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirmin learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirmin action of the Assessing Officer in determining the income at Rs. action of the Assessing Officer in determining the income at Rs. action of the Assessing Officer in determining the income at Rs. 54,58,92,371/- -as against the returned income of Rs. 1,04,667/ as against the returned income of Rs. 1,04,667/-.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the action learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirm learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirm of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Undisclosed of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Undisclosed of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Undisclosed Purchases u/s 69C of Rs. 54,31,76,489/ Purchases u/s 69C of Rs. 54,31,76,489/-.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the action learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the acti learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the acti of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Commission of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Commission of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Commission of Rs. 27,15,882/ of Rs. 27,15,882/-. Your Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or Your Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or Your Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the ground(s) of appeal at the time or before the hearing of this all the ground(s) of appeal at the time or before the hearing of this all the ground(s) of appeal at the time or before the hearing of this appeal.”
At the outset, it is noted that despite due service of notice, At the outset, it is noted that despite due service of notice, At the outset, it is noted that despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing, nor none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing, nor none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing, nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the records, it is was any application for adjournment filed. From the records, it is was any application for adjournment filed. From the records, it is further evident that on earlier occasions as well, the assessee failed further evident that on earlier occasions as well, the ass further evident that on earlier occasions as well, the ass to respond to the notices of hearing issued for 12.08.2025 and to respond to the notices of hearing issued for 12.08.2025 and to respond to the notices of hearing issued for 12.08.2025 and 06.10.2025. In these circumstances, we are constrained to hold 06.10.2025. In these circumstances, we are constrained to hold 06.10.2025. In these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was heard Accordingly, the appeal was heard ex parte qua the as qua the assessee after hearing hearing hearing the the the submissions submissions submissions of of of the the the learned learned learned Departmental Departmental Departmental Representative.
From the record, it is noticed that there is a delay of 234 days From the record, it is noticed that there is a delay of 234 days From the record, it is noticed that there is a delay of 234 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an for condonation of delay along with an affidavit sworn by its affidavit sworn by its director. In the affidavit, it has been stated that after receipt of the director. In the affidavit, it has been stated that after receipt of the director. In the affidavit, it has been stated that after receipt of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the tax (Appeals), the matter was entrusted to the assessee’s consultant for further matter was entrusted to the assessee’s consultant for further matter was entrusted to the assessee’s consultant for further necessary action. However, during necessary action. However, during the relevant period, the the relevant period, the consultant was suffering from acute viral fever and upper consultant was suffering from acute viral fever and upper consultant was suffering from acute viral fever and upper respiratory tract infection, for which he was advised complete bed respiratory tract infection, for which he was advised complete bed respiratory tract infection, for which he was advised complete bed rest by the doctor. Owing to his illness, he had proceeded to his rest by the doctor. Owing to his illness, he had proceeded to his rest by the doctor. Owing to his illness, he had proceeded to his native place in Rajasthan and, during th native place in Rajasthan and, during that period, was unable to file at period, was unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time or even intimate the assessee the appeal within the prescribed time or even intimate the assessee the appeal within the prescribed time or even intimate the assessee about the delay. It has been further affirmed that the delay was about the delay. It has been further affirmed that the delay was about the delay. It has been further affirmed that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to bona fide neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to bona fide neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Relevant Relevant part of affidavit is reproduced reproduced as under:
“3. We are in receipt of the CIT (A) order. After receiving the order, 3. We are in receipt of the CIT (A) order. After receiving the order, 3. We are in receipt of the CIT (A) order. After receiving the order, the same has been handed over to our consultant Mr. Bhanu Pratap the same has been handed over to our consultant Mr. Bhanu Pratap the same has been handed over to our consultant Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh (Advocate), for further action. But Singh (Advocate), for further action. But unfortunately, during that unfortunately, during that period he was suffering from acute viral fever and URTI (Acute upper period he was suffering from acute viral fever and URTI (Acute upper period he was suffering from acute viral fever and URTI (Acute upper respiratory tract infections), so the doctor has advised him to take respiratory tract infections), so the doctor has advised him to take respiratory tract infections), so the doctor has advised him to take complete bed rest. Since his family is in his native place, he went to complete bed rest. Since his family is in his native place, he went to complete bed rest. Since his family is in his native place, he went to his native place in his native place in Rajasthan. Unfortunately, during that period, he Unfortunately, during that period, he was unable to file the appeal in time nor in a position to inform us was unable to file the appeal in time nor in a position to inform us was unable to file the appeal in time nor in a position to inform us about the same about the same.
4. Since the date of the order is 08.08.2024, the respective appeal Since the date of the order is 08.08.2024, the respective appeal Since the date of the order is 08.08.2024, the respective appeal should have been filed on or before 07.10.2024. Hence there is a should have been filed on or before 07.10.2024. Hence should have been filed on or before 07.10.2024. Hence delay of 248 days in filing the appeal. The delay was not delay of 248 days in filing the appeal. The delay was not delay of 248 days in filing the appeal. The delay was not intentional, and it was for a Bonafede reason. intentional, and it was for a Bonafede reason.”
It is an undisputed position that the explanation for delay has It is an undisputed position that the explanation for delay has It is an undisputed position that the explanation for delay has been duly supported by an affidavit and no counter-affidavit has been duly supported by an affidavit and no counter been duly supported by an affidavit and no counter been filed by the Revenue to controvert the facts stated therein. In filed by the Revenue to controvert the facts stated therein. In filed by the Revenue to controvert the facts stated therein. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown these circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown these circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudi delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudi merits.
Having considered submission of the Ld. Having considered submission of the Ld. DR DR op merits and , we find that the learned Commissioner of perusal of the record, perusal of the record, , we find that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has disposed of the appeal without duly tax (Appeals) has disposed of the appeal without duly tax (Appeals) has disposed of the appeal without duly considering the submissions and evidences of the assessee. The considering the submissions and evidences of the a considering the submissions and evidences of the a assessee has raised grievances against various additions made by assessee has raised grievances against various additions made by assessee has raised grievances against various additions made by the Assessing Officer, which, in our considered view, require proper the Assessing Officer, which, in our considered view, require proper the Assessing Officer, which, in our considered view, require proper examination after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. In examination after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. In examination after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice and fair play, we the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to grant deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to place on record the one more opportunity to the assessee to place on record the one more opportunity to the assessee to place on record the necessary documents and evidences in support of its claims. necessary documents and evidences in support of its claims. necessary documents and evidences in support of its claims. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is set aside and the m tax (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is restored to his atter is restored to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/01/2026 1/2026.