BAJAJ PROCESSING INDUSTRIES ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 21(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1279/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Bajaj Processing Industries appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which dismissed their appeal for a 19-day delay in filing without considering the merits. The original assessment by the Income Tax Officer had significantly increased the assessed income by disallowing certain credits and partner remunerations, which the appellant contested. The Tribunal's decision emphasizes the need for substantive justice over procedural technicalities, particularly in cases where the appellant may not be fully aware of procedural norms due to age or other factors.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473531 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVEETA PUNIT KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: MAYUR J. GOSRANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 143(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘B’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1279/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bajaj Processing Industries Lakshmi Industrial Estate, Hanuman Gali, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. PAN: AAAFB 1560 G vs ITO, Ward-21(1)(2), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Mayur J. Gosrani Revenue by : Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.11.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting condonation of delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A) and not considering the merits of the case. The appellant had been denied of principle of natural justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the condonation of delay erred in holding that the appellant is aware of notices since he has filed an adjournment request via the portal. The appellant came to know about the passing of the assessment order upon receipt of Intimation u/s 245 of Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.1279/Mum/2024 Bajaj Processing Industries A.Y. 2016-17 2 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay as the appellant had submitted the plausible explanation for the delay. Further, the appellant neither had any malafide intention nor had gained any undue benefit or there is no loss to the revenue for delay in filing the appeal. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case law the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO had grossly erred in addition of Rs 1,06,95,564/- as an unverified creditors without considering the submissions of the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings without considering the fact that the increase in creditors is on account acquisition of fixed assets which are paid in the subsequent year. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case law the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO erred in addition of Rs 1,50,000/- towards remuneration to partners by applying the provisions of Section 184(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering submission of the appellate during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. The order appeal against is bad in Law and against the principle of natural justices and tax jurisprudence. 7. The order appeal against is based on surmises and conjectures. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 9. Each ground of appeal is distinct and separate. ” 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income at Rs. 6,00,320/- was filed on 26.09.2016. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 04.07.2017. During the course of assessment proceeding because of non-compliance from the side of the assessee, the assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act and total income was assessed at Rs. 1,14,45,880/- after disallowing the outstanding ITA No.1279/Mum/2024 Bajaj Processing Industries A.Y. 2016-17 3 sundry creditors standing more than a year to the amount of Rs. 1,06,95,564/- and disallowance of remuneration paid to the partners to the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal filed by the assessee on merit and appeal was dismissed without condoning the delay in filing the appeal by 19 days. 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel submitted that ld. CIT(A) is unjustified in not deciding the appeal filed by the assessee on merit without the condonation of marginal delay in filing the appeal by 19 days. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the assessee being a senior citizen was not fully aware about the online mode of communication of notices by e-mail and he came to know about completion of assessment after receiving the notice u/s 245 of the Act. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. After perusal of the submission of the assessee, we find that the assessee has properly explained before the ld. CIT(A) that being a senior citizen assessee was not fully aware about the new system of filing of appeal through online. We find that action of ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the marginal delay of 19 days is not justified, therefore, we condone the marginal delay of filing 19 days filing before the First Appellate Authority and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the assessee on merit as contemplate u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to say that adequate opportunity of hearing be ITA No.1279/Mum/2024 Bajaj Processing Industries A.Y. 2016-17 4 provided to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.11.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai: 21.11.2024 Biswajit, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent: 3. The CIT, 4. The DR . //True Copy// [ By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai "