VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNITS, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4604/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 259 days in filing the appeal, considering the miscommunication as unintentional and bonafide. Due to the ex-parte nature of the assessment order, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,15,000/-. The assessee challenged this addition before the Ld. Commissioner but faced a delay of 259 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed the delay to miscommunication with their erstwhile counsel.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner can be condoned, and whether the assessment order should be set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Upadhyay, Ld. A.R. &, Ms. Parul Pandya, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Sr. A.R
Hearing: 28.11.2024Pronounced: 28.11.2024

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.07.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 19.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act has made the addition of Rs.1,15,000/-.

3.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner by filing the first appeal, however, with a delay of 259 days in filing the appeal. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner with regard to the delay has submitted that the erstwhile Ld. Counsel of the Assessee failed to inform the Assessee about the non-filing of the appeal and the Assessee only came to know about the same, once the recovery notice from the Department has been received and thereafter the Assessee immediately appointed a new counsel without any further delay, somehow, the delay of 259 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner has occurred, which was neither intentional nor malafide but because of the mis-communication/non-communication with the erstwhile Counsel.

4.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before this Tribunal. This Court has observed that the cause/reason stated by the Assessee was not found as sufficient cause and therefore the Ld. Commissioner declined to condone the delay. No doubt the reason submitted by the Assessee seems to be against the Ld. Erstwhile Counsel and personal in nature, however, considering the mis-communication/non-communication as unintentional, bonafide and genuine, and therefore for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court deem it appropriate to condone the delay, thus the delay occurred before the Ld. Commissioner in filling of 1st appeal, is condoned. Considering the peculiar fact that the assessment order is an ex-parte and therefore the case is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his claim.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →