HITESH PAWANRAJ MEHTA ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 3745/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A), which dismissed his appeal as it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The ITAT, referencing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technicalities and decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was restored to the AO for a decision on merits, with instructions for the assessee to remain cooperative and not seek adjournments on frivolous grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793193 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITHA V. NAIR
• Assessee Lawyers: S. R LODHE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3745/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2010-11) Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta 1st Floor, 114, RK Wadi, VP Road, Girgaon, Mumbai – 400 004 PAN – AFZPM7740K Vs ITO, Ward – 19(1)(5) Charni Road Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S. R Lodhe Revenue by Smt. Smitha V. Nair, CIT DR Date of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the A.Y 2011-12. 2. From the records, I noticed that the assessee was ex- parte before the AO and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. 3. I have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, I Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3745/Mum/2025 Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta, Mumbai. noticed that assessee explained the reason for seeking condonation of delay before Ld. CIT(A). 5. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression \"sufficient cause\" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Hence considering the fact that the assessee has justifiably and property explained the delay which occurred in filing the appeal the expression ‘sufficient cause’ is being liberally construed, therefore I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). Since there was non cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a cost of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3745/Mum/2025 Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta, Mumbai. 6. Since I have already condoned the delay, therefore I restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the same on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 7. Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law. 8. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/09/2025 Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 23/09/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3745/Mum/2025 Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta, Mumbai. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "