SATISH RAJAJI RATHOD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD -19(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4494/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 November 2024AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)1 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 appeals, considering the reasonable and sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The Tribunal found that it was in the interest of justice to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two separate appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2012-13. Both appeals were filed after the period of limitation, and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed them as not maintainable without condoning the delay. The assessment orders were also framed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed belatedly by the assessee should be admitted for hearing after condoning the delay, and if the assessment orders framed ex-parte should be set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Sucheck Anchaliya
For Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad, SR. D.R
Hearing: 28.11.2024Pronounced: 28.11.2024

Present for: Assessee by : Shri Sucheck Anchaliya Revenue by : Shri Suresh Gaikwad, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 O R D E R Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, A.M.:

& are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders of NFAC Delhi dated 02/05/2024 pertaining to A.Y.2009- & 4494/M/2024 Satish Rajaji Rathod; 10 and 2012-13. Both the appeals were heard together and are disposed off by these common orders for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2.

Both the appeals have been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. We have carefully considered the request for the condonation of delay supported by affidavit.

3.

We are convinced that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time, the delay is condone.

4.

The underlying facts are common in both the appeals in as much as both the appeals have been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) as not maintainable.

5.

We find that since the appeals were filed belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

6.

We find that even the assessment orders have been framed ex- parte.

7.

Considering the facts of the case in totality, we are of the considered view that the assessee should get one more opportunity to defend its case.

8.

Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore both the appeals to the files of the Ld.AO.

9.

The Ld.AO directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

& 4494/M/2024 Satish Rajaji Rathod; 10. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2024. Sd/- Sd/- RAHUL CHAUDHARY NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place: Mumbai, Dated: 28.11.2024 Snehal C. Ayare, Stenographer Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Ld.DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT //True Copy//

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →