AKOLA TRADING COMPANY LLP ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2448/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Akola Trading Company LLP, which is the successor to Akola Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., challenging two separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. The appeals were initially filed belatedly, with the assessee citing the illness and subsequent death of a partner's father as the reason for the delay. The Tribunal found the delay to be due to reasonable cause and admitted the appeals for adjudication on merit. The primary grievances included the dismissal of the appeal in limine by the First Appellate Authority without condoning the delay and the validity of the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716448 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SHASHANK MEHTA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 144; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM ITA Nos. 2448 & 2293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Akola Trading Company LLP (Successor of Akola Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.) 1203, 12th Floor, Wallace Fortuna Aurus Tower, Shivdas Champsi Marg, Mazgaon, Opp. Fazlani School, Mumbai-400 009 Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(1)(1) (through NFAC, Delhi) Kautilya Bhavan, C41-43, G Block, BKC, Gliban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No. ABEFA 9793 R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Shashank Mehta Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan Date of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: Aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging two separate orders passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. While ITA No. 2448/Mum/2025 arises out of quantum proceedings, ITA No. 2293/Mum/2025 is against imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). However, both the appeals pertain to assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Before we proceed to deal with the appeals on merit, it is necessary to put on record that both the appeals have been filed belatedly. While ITA No. 2448/Mum/2025 has been filed with delay of 159 days, ITA No. 2293/Mum/2025 has delay of 1 day. The assessee has filed applications seeking condonation of delay supported by Affidavit. It is the say of Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 2448 & 2293/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Akola Trading Company LLP vs. ITO the assessee that the email-id in which the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) were communicated, belonged to one of the partners of the assessee. It is submitted, the father of the concerned person was suffering from Ischemic heart disease since May, 2024 and ultimately died on 25.03.2025. It is submitted, due to illness of his father, the concerned partner was unable to manage the affairs of the firm and even did not regularly access the email-id, for which the orders passed by the A.O. escaped attention, resulting in delay in filing the appeals. Thus, it is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the delay in filing the appeals not being deliberate, should be condoned and the appeals be decided on merit. 3. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) opposed condonation of delay. 4. Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merit. 5. Insofar as ITA No. 2448/Mum/2025 is concerned, the basic grievance of the assessee is against dismissal of the appeal in limine by learned First Appellate Authority without condoning the delay. The relevant facts are, the assessee is a limited liability partnership firm (LLP) and successor to M/s. Akola Trading Company Private Limited. For the assessment year under dispute, as alleged by the A.O., the assessee did not file any return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. However, information was available with the A.O. that in the year under consideration the assessee had earned income through renting out house property and contractual receipts. Based on such information, the A.O. reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. As it appears from the assessment order, there was no Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 2448 & 2293/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Akola Trading Company LLP vs. ITO response from assessee’s side to various notices issued in course of assessment proceedings. Hence, the A.O. proceeded to complete the assessment to the best of his judgement invoking the provision of section 144 of the Act. While doing so, he made couple of additions, resulting in determination of total income at Rs.94,20,090/-. 6. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Authority. 7. However, there was delay of more than 10 months in filing the appeal. Though, the assessee requested for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, however, being unsatisfied with the reasons for delay shown by the assessee, learned First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. 8. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. Before us, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee has explained the reasons for which the assessee could not file the appeal in time before learned First Appellate Authority. The ld. Counsel has further submitted before us that the assessment order is invalid as it has been passed in the name of a non-existent entity. After taking note of the factual matrix and the circumstances which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before learned First Appellate Authority in time, we are of the considered opinion that there was justifiable reasons for not filing the appeal in time. In our view, learned First Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective. Moreover, in our view, the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment order merits consideration. Since, the assessee did not get opportunity to make its submissions on merits before learned First Appellate Authority due to dismissal of the appeal in limine, in our Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 2448 & 2293/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Akola Trading Company LLP vs. ITO view, the assessee deserves such an opportunity. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to learned First Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Insofar as ITA No. 2293/Mum/2025, challenging the imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, in view of our decision above, we set aside the order of learned First Appellate Authority and restore the issue of imposition of penalty to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh, if warranted, depending upon the outcome of the quantum proceeding pending before learned First Appellate Authority. 10. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.08.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Girish Agrawal) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 19.08.2025 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "