ALL INDIA RUBBER INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI V. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE 1, MUMBAI

ITA 2404/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the All India Rubber Industries Association appealing against an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which was issued by the CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai. The order set aside an earlier assessment order, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appeal was filed significantly beyond the prescribed period, leading to a preliminary hearing on the condonation of delay. The tribunal, after considering the reasons for the delay provided by the assessee, decided not to condone the delay, citing lack of sufficient cause and emphasizing the binding nature of statutory limitations on all parties, including the government.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707027 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Office of The Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd. & Anr (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC), Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heirs, 2024 SCC Online SC 489
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: PIYUSH CHHAJED; AYUSH CHHAJED; ARS
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation; Right to appeal; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

"| आयकर अपील य अ धकरण यायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2404/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 All India Rubber Industries Association 301, A – Wing, Kaledonia Third Floor, Sahar Road Opp. D. Mart, Vijay Nagar Andheri East Mumbai - 400099 [PAN: AAACA7076R] Vs CIT (Exemption), Circle-1 अपीलाथ\u0012/ (Appellant) \u0014\u0015 यथ\u0012/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Piyush Chhajed & Shri Ayush Chhajed, A/Rs Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT D/R सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(E)”] dated 11/03/2024 framed u/s 263 of the Act by which the ld. CIT(E) set aside the assessment order dated 26/04/2021 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The appeal has been filed 328 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation which means that there is a delay of 328 days in filing the appeal. Considering the issue of substantial delay in filing the appeal, the parties at the very outset were heard on the issue of condonation of delay. I.T.A. No. 2404/Mum/2025 2 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant material evidence brought on record duly considered. All that we have to examine is whether the assessee has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 4. Section 253 of the Act provides right to appeal both to the assessee as well as the AO against certain orders which are appealable before the Tribunal as per the said provision. This means that the right to appeal under the Act is a statutory right circumscribed by period of limitation as per Section 253 of the Act. The appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of order appealed against. 4.1. While explaining the cause of delay, the assessee through its affidavit dated 01/04/2025, and subsequent submissions made before the Bench on 03/07/2025 submitted that the employee staff looks into day-to-day operations of the association which included liaisoning with legal advisors. It is strongly contended that the impugned order which would have received by e-mail was not noticed and was overlooked and it is only in the month of January, 2025, when the notice u/s 142(1) dated 21/01/2025 was received for making a de novo assessment pursuant to the order u/s 263 of the Act, the association approached the legal advisors. It has been further stated in the affidavit that the assessment proceedings are going on with the same assessing officer who had already denied exemption, the said order u/s 263 of the Act may not cause any prejudice till the time he passes the relevant assessment order and, therefore, the legal advisor was not I.T.A. No. 2404/Mum/2025 3 approached. The assessment order was subsequently framed on 16/03/2025 and the association approached the legal advisor who advised to file the appeal against the original order u/s 263 of the Act. 5. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the contents of the affidavit. However, as per the provision contained u/s 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal has power to condone the delay only when it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Fact of the present case show that the assessee waited for the assessment order pursuant to the order u/s 263 of the Act and when it did not receive a clean assessment order, it filed the appeal against the order framed u/s 263 of the Act. In case of Office of The Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd. & Anr (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC), while refusing to condone the delay Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. In case of Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heirs, 2024 SCC Online SC 489, The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that delay should not be excluded as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. Therefore, while seeking condonation of delay, the party has to prove that it was reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter. 6. In the facts of the present appeal, we do not find such diligence. On the contrary, as mentioned elsewhere, waiting for the assessment order and on not finding it beneficial, the appeal has been filed against the order u/s 263 of the Act, in itself shows malafide of the assessee. I.T.A. No. 2404/Mum/2025 4 Thus, in our considered opinion, the assessee has failed to make out sufficient cause for explaining the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we decline to condone the inordinate delay of 328 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine without being decided on merits. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 7th July, 2025 at Mumbai. SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 07/07/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs आदेश क \u0016\u0017त\u0018ल\u001aप अ े\u001aषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ! / The Appellant 2. \u0016\"यथ! / The Respondent 3. संबं&धत आयकर आयु(त / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु(त ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. \u001aवभागीय \u0016\u0017त\u0017न&ध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड. फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपील य अ&धकरण ITAT, Mumbai "