SAMIR ARVIND THAKKER,CHEMBUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(3), MUMABI, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2817/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 September 2024AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON'BLE (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, citing the Supreme Court's observations in Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others, held that refusing to condone delay can defeat justice, while condoning it allows for a decision on merits. Therefore, to prevent grave injustice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was barred by limitation by 1172 days. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, despite considering the assessee's affidavit explaining the delay. The assessee argued that there was no malafide intention and the delay was not in their hands.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal decided on merits, or if the appeal is to be dismissed as not maintainable due to the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary, A/R
Hearing: 19/09/2024Pronounced: 25/09/2024

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 31/03/2024 by NFAC Delhi [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)] pertaining to AY 2010-11.

2.

The grievance of the assessee reads as under :- “1. The Learned CIT(A) erred on facts, in law and under the circumstances in failing to condone the delay in filing the appeal on frivolous and vexations grounds. 2. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in failing to take notice of grounds on which the AO has reopened the case and grounds on which the addition is made in the assessment order which is evident from reading of the assessment order and consequently failed to held that the reopening is bad in law. 3. The appellant submit that the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) should be condoned, the reopening should be held as bad in law and otherwise the addition made of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- should be held as bad in law on merits of the case.

2 4. On the facts of the case, in law and under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C without providing the break-up and the nature of the expenditure etc. which in his opinion is unexplained. 5. The Assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal

.”

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was barred by limitation by 1172 days. The assessee filed an affidavit stating the facts which were the cause for the delay. Though the ld. CIT(A) considered the request for condonation of delay but did not accept the contentions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 3.1. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the ld. CIT(A) and once again took us through the facts and pointed out that there was no malafide intentions in not filing the appeal on time and the reasons for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation was not in the hands of the assessee and the assessee has gained nothing by filing the appeal late. Therefore, the matter should be sent back to the ld. CIT(A) to be decided on the merits of the case. 3.2. Per contra the ld. D/R strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).

4. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully perused the contents of the affidavit. We are reminded of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court has laid down that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →