MANSHA RAMCHANDRA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 1253/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: 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 held that a delay of 36 days cannot be considered inordinate or with malafide intention, as the taxpayer gains nothing by such a delay. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an order of the NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary grievance was that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning a 36-day delay in filing the appeal, and subsequently confirming the assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, and if so, whether the subsequent confirmation of assessment was appropriate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

IT Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

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

For Appellant: Mr. Gunjan Kakkad, A/R

Hearing: 09/07/2024Pronounced: 09/07/2024

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 21/01/2024 by NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT()A erred in not condoning the delay and thereafter confirming the assessment.

Representatives heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

We find that before the ld. CIT(A) there was a delay in filing the appeal of 36 days. Though the ld. CIT(A) has referred to several judicial decisions for not condoning the delay but we are of the considered view that delay of 36 days cannot be termed as inordinate delay with malafide intention as tax-payer would not gain anything by not filing the appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mansha Ramchandra Singh 2

we restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits of the case after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 9th July, 2024 at Mumbai. (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 09/07/2024 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

""थ" / The Respondent 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 3. आयकर आयु" अपील

( ) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 5. गाड" फाई/ Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →