HARISH DHARMA RATHOD (REPRESENTED THROUGH LEGAL HEIR PUSHPA H. RATHOD),MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 817/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Harish Dharma Rathod, represented by his legal heir Pushpa H. Rathod, against the order of the CIT(A), which dismissed the appellant's appeal due to a delay of 145 days in filing. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by the death of his father, and that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits or providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the merits of the case and that the reasons for the delay were minimal, thus allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and directing a re-hearing on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112150 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (69 Taxman.com 407)(Bom)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai. Before Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 817/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Harish Dharma Rathod (represented through Legal Heir Pushpa H. Rathod) Room No. 37, BMC Chowl 150 Suklaji Street, Behind Nishant Cinema, Mumbai 400 008. Vs. ITO Ward 42(2)(3) Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020. PAN : ABKPR9312B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sachin Kumar (Virtually) Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi Date of Hearing : 03/04/2025 Date of pronouncement : 17/04/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The appellant filed an appeal with the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. 2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of “audi alteram partem”. 3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without application of mind and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant only on the ground of not providing reasons for the condonation of delay as the appeal was delayed by 145 days. 5. That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in passing the appellate order dismissing the appellant’s appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal and without going into the merits of the case or discussing the various grounds of appeal filed against the impugned assessment order. Harish Dharma Rathod (represented through Legal Heir Pushpa H. Rathod) 2 6. That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has misdirected himself in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant without appreciating the judgements passed by various courts in regard to the condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. 7. That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in passing the appellate order dismissing the appellant’s appeal without granting final opportunity of making submissions in regard to the appeal filed against the impugned assessment order. 8. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the appellate order in a mechanical way, without application of mind and without appreciating the overall facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing. 10. That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.” 2. From the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 134 days. As there is a delay in filing appeal, the appellant filed an application before Ld. CIT(A) requesting him to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits. In this application, the appellant gave reasons for delay in detail. But, the Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the reasoning and hence dismissed the appeal, by quoting certain cases-law. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), an appeal was filed before the ITAT with the grounds of appeal mentioned in page No. 1 of this order. 4. During the hearing proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld. AR of the appellant has argued as follows :- a) The appellant has a very good case on merits and he is not going to gain anything by filing an appeal with delay. b) The father of appellant passed away and it took some time to bring to get the legal representative on record. Harish Dharma Rathod (represented through Legal Heir Pushpa H. Rathod) 3 c) The appellant was not granted any opportunity to explain the case on merits by Ld. CIT(A). d) The order of Ld. CIT(A) does not contain adjudication on merits, even though several grounds of appeal were raised on merits. 5. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). 6. After perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and hearing both sides, it is decided that the appellant should be given proper opportunity to be heard and his case should be disposed of on merits. As the appellant’s father passed away and the reason for delay is minimal, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to give an opportunity to the appellant and pass the order on merits. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (69 Taxman.com 407)(Bom), has held that Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal without discussing the case on merits and other grounds of appeal raised by appellant. 7. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes as above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 17/04/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT Harish Dharma Rathod (represented through Legal Heir Pushpa H. Rathod) 4 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai PS "