INCOME TAX OFFICER-9(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. BLINDING EDGE FILM PVT LTD , MUMBAI

ITA 8/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against Blinding Edge Film Pvt. Ltd., challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs.15,30,14,877 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal was initially delayed due to internal miscommunications and administrative errors within the Department, leading to a late filing. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay were not sufficient to warrant condonation, emphasizing the need for procedural diligence and institutional continuity in the functioning of government bodies.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714776 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATYAPRAKASH R SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Tax effect

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2018-19) Income Tax Officer- 9(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Blinding Edge Film Pvt. Ltd., 702, Cosmos Plaza CTS No.824 & 834 Opp. Indian Oil Society J.P.Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 053 PAN/GIR No.AAHCB3815E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 07/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 13/02/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.15,30,14,877/- u/s.68. From the records it is seen that several notices were sent to the respondent-assessee to this Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8/Mum/2025 Blinding Edge Film Pvt. Ltd. 2 office and also through the office of ld. CIT-DR however, notices could not be served despite several attempts. 3. Another fact which has been noted that the appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 246 days. In the condonation of delay following reasons have been given:- The Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Madam/Sir, Sub: Condonation of delay/Reasons for delay in filing appeal in the case of M/s Blinding Edge Film Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAHCB3815E) A.Y 2018-19 (ITA/8/Mum/2025). Reg. Kindly refer to the above 2. In the above-mentioned case the scrutiny report to the order of the Ld CIT(A) DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060870578(1) dated 13 02 2024 has heen submitted by the erstwhile officer (IT) 9(2)(1), Mumbar) to the office of PCIT-1, Mumbai through proper channel on 01 03 2024 However, in the said scrutiny report the then AO has misinterpreted the appeal as dismissed by Ld CIT(A) and inadvertently calculated the tax effect as nil and in view of the low tax effect he did not recommend the appeal 3. Since, there was an error in the earlier scrutiny report, the Ld PCIT 1, Mumbai vide letter dated 22 10 2024 directed to submit the revised scrutiny report. Thereafter the officer holding this charge has been transferred out and the undersigned has joined this charge on 26.11 2023 and the revised scrutiny report was submitted through proper channel on 28.11.2024. The approval of the PCIT-1 Mumbai for filing of appeal along with the Authorization Memo was received on 31.12.2024. The appeal could not be filed on 31.12.2024 due to technical reason (the screenshot of OTP received on e-mail is attached) Thereafter the appeal was filed by this office on Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8/Mum/2025 Blinding Edge Film Pvt. Ltd. 3 01.01 2025. For the sake of clarity, the chronology of events has been tabulated as under:- Sr No Event of the case Date 1. CIT(A) order date 13.02.2024 2. CIT(A) order receipt date 13.02.2024 3. The AO submitted his scrutiny report through proper channel 01.03 2024 4. The PCIT-1, Mumbai, directions received for filing revised scrutiny report 22.10.2024 5. Revised scrutiny report submitted by the AO 28.11.2024 6. Authorisation memo received from PCIT-1, Mumbai Office. 31.03.2024 7. Appeal filed by the AO 01.01.2024 4 In view of above, for the reasons as mentioned above, it is kindly requested to condone the delay of 246 days in filing of appeal in the case of M/s Blinding Edge Film Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAHCB38158) Α.Υ.2018-19 ( ITA/8/Mum/2025). This issues with the approval of the Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Mumbai. 4. Admittedly, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) was received by the Assessing Officer on 13.02.2024. Yet, the Revenue’s explanation for the inordinate delay of 246 days in filing the appeal hinges upon an internal misreading of the appellate order and a subsequent change of opinion at the level of supervisory authorities. Initially, no appeal was recommended by the ld.AO, allegedly due to a mistaken understanding that the appeal had been dismissed, coupled with a perceived ‘Nil’ tax effect. This position, notably, was taken with the approval of the then PCIT. However, a revised scrutiny report was later Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8/Mum/2025 Blinding Edge Film Pvt. Ltd. 4 directed and filed under the instructions of a new incumbent PCIT, who thereafter approved the filing of the appeal. 5. Such shifting stands within the Department, particularly between two senior supervisory authorities, cannot form the basis for condonation of a delay of this magnitude. Government officials, acting in discharge of their statutory duties, cannot seek refuge behind pleas of misinterpretation or administrative lapses. The machinery of the State is expected to function with institutional continuity and procedural diligence, not ad hocism. The Revenue cannot be permitted to oscillate in its decision-making and then urge the Tribunal to overlook delays caused by such internal inconsistencies. We therefore, are not persuaded to treat the aforesaid explanation as constituting ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of the law. The delay of 246 days in filing the appeal is neither reasonably explained nor justified by any bona fide circumstances. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as barred by limitation. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 7th August, 2025. Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 07/08/2025 KARUNA, sr.ps Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8/Mum/2025 Blinding Edge Film Pvt. Ltd. 5 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "