PMI ENTERTAINMENT (INDIA), MUMBAI V. ACIT, CIR-16(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1656/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0193 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 250; 55A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 1656/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1501, Sorrento Veera Desai Road, Opp. Country Club, Andheri West- 400053. Vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), 4 th floor, 467, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20 PAN No. AADCP 1031 E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Devendra Jain & Mr. Shashank Mehta Revenue by : Mr. H M Bhatt, DR Date of Hearing : 01/11/2023 Date of pronouncement : 03/11/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 20.06.2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds: Ground No.1 "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -4, Mumbai erred in law in passing ex-parte (non-attendance) order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard as your appellant has not received any notice of hearing due to change of address and the learned CIT (Appeals) passed the order without ascertaining that the notice of he appellant. Your appellant pray that non IV, Mumbai will be against the principle of natural justice to your appellant. Ground No. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, Your delay in filing of appeal by 2100 days approximately shall be condoned for the reason that your appellant was not aware of the ex passed as explained in the affidavit. Your appellant hereby requests your honour to condone t filing of this appeal considering the facts and circumstances causing such delay as mentioned in the Affidavit, duly signed by the director of your appellant, attached separately based on the principle of natural justice and the fairness of the appellant may be affected. GROUND NO 3 "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustaining the addition made by the assess the claim of write off of tele serial Rights Value' in aggregate of Rs. 1,19,56,138 as per accounting policy followed by your appellant and without appreciating that this expenditure amount has not been claimed and allowed in th GROUND No. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer for Rs. 126,332 being the write off of advance amount given to Mr. settlement of dues in connection with the production of "Tamil Programme 'Akka Thangai' for Tamil Channel" 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel this appeal has been filed Counsel for the assessee referred to the affidavit filed by the Director of the assessee company. T reproduced as under: PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. without ascertaining that the notice of hearing has been served to your Your appellant pray that non-restoration of appeal before CIT(Appeals) IV, Mumbai will be against the principle of natural justice to your On the facts and circumstances of the case, Your appellant plead that delay in filing of appeal by 2100 days approximately shall be condoned for the reason that your appellant was not aware of the ex passed as explained in the affidavit. Your appellant hereby requests your honour to condone t filing of this appeal considering the facts and circumstances causing such delay as mentioned in the Affidavit, duly signed by the director of your appellant, attached separately based on the principle of natural justice and the fairness of the law considering the extent by which the appellant may be affected. GROUND NO 3 "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, erred in law and in facts in sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer for disallowing the claim of write off of tele serial Rights Value' in aggregate of Rs. 1,19,56,138 as per accounting policy followed by your appellant and without appreciating that this expenditure amount has not been claimed and allowed in the past assessment years" GROUND No. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, erred in law and in facts in sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer for Rs. 126,332 e off of advance amount given to Mr. Prashant Jadhav for settlement of dues in connection with the production of "Tamil Programme 'Akka Thangai' for Tamil Channel" At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 2100 days. The Ld. the assessee referred to the affidavit filed by the of the assessee company. The contents of the affidavit are reproduced as under: PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 1656/Mum/2023 aring has been served to your restoration of appeal before CIT(Appeals) - IV, Mumbai will be against the principle of natural justice to your appellant plead that delay in filing of appeal by 2100 days approximately shall be condoned for the reason that your appellant was not aware of the ex-parte order Your appellant hereby requests your honour to condone the delay in filing of this appeal considering the facts and circumstances causing such delay as mentioned in the Affidavit, duly signed by the director of your appellant, attached separately based on the principle of natural law considering the extent by which the "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner 4, Mumbai, erred in law and in facts in ing officer for disallowing the claim of write off of tele serial Rights Value' in aggregate of Rs. 1,19,56,138 as per accounting policy followed by your appellant and without appreciating that this expenditure amount has not been claimed On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner 4, Mumbai, erred in law and in facts in sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer for Rs. 126,332 Prashant Jadhav for settlement of dues in connection with the production of "Tamil the assessee submitted that with a delay of 2100 days. The Ld. the assessee referred to the affidavit filed by the he contents of the affidavit are 3. That aggrieved by the assessment order, the appeal was filed physically on 13th April 2016 with Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 4 Mumbai. The E hence the appeal was E acknowledgement form 35 filed electronically the accountant Mr Ashok Mishra's email address [e-mail] along with his telephone number 9821261990 was given as he was in charge of all the accounts and taxation related matters of the company in addition to t tax consultants CA Shri Shailesh Dave. Thus the Company had filed an appeal with Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) help of CA Shri Shailesh Dave. 4. THAT after the filing of appeal physically on 13th April 2016 but before electronically filing it on 04/06/2016 Patadia, who was running the business of the Company and affairs of the Company, expired on 4th May 2016. 5. THAT after the filing of appeal the Chartered Accountant Shri Shailesh Dave. Pr on 2nd March, 2017. 6. Thus after the death of director Shri Manish Patadia and also the death of Chartered Accountant Shri Shailesh Dave on 02/03/2017 (copy of death certificate attached), Mr. Ashok Mishra was accounts, tax matters and all the communication with the income tax department. On 24th May 2017 Mr Ashok Mishra as an the accountant and authorised signatory submitted letter dated 24th May 2017 to the Commissioner of notice of the change of address from OLD OFFICE ADDRESS of the company as mentioned in the appeal memo in form No.35 from Kartik Complex, Opp, Laxmi Industrial Mumbai - 400053 to NEW OFFICE ADDRE Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai why the notice of change of address was submitted to Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (copy attached). 7. That the change of address was wrongly submitted on 24th March, 2017 to CIT (Appeals) CIT (Appeals)-4, Mumbai with whom the Appeal was filed. On realising the error and to rectify the same another notice of change was submitted to CIT (Appeals) letter dated 8th January, 2018 with attachment of e acknowledgement of appeal to CIT(Appeals) the telephone number and email address of the dir Patadia (copy attached). 8. THAT for the assessment year 2009 appeal in Form no 35 against the assessment order on 24th April, 2023. After filing of appeal for assessment year 2009 it came to the notice of CA Bharat Kanabar from the Income Tax portal PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. That aggrieved by the assessment order, the appeal was filed physically on 13th April 2016 with Commissioner of Income tax 4 Mumbai. The E-filling of the appeal was then required and hence the appeal was E-filed electronically on 04/06/2016 acknowledgement number 187683201040616 and in the appeal me form 35 filed electronically the accountant Mr Ashok Mishra's email address [e-mail] along with his telephone number 9821261990 was given as he was in charge of all the accounts and taxation related matters of the company in addition to the auditor and tax consultants CA Shri Shailesh Dave. Thus the Company had filed an appeal with Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 4 Mumbai with the help of CA Shri Shailesh Dave. 4. THAT after the filing of appeal physically on 13th April 2016 but ore electronically filing it on 04/06/2016 the director Shri Manish Patadia, who was running the business of the Company and affairs of the Company, expired on 4th May 2016. 5. THAT after the filing of appeal the Chartered Accountant Shri Shailesh Dave. Proprietor of firm M/s. S.B DAVE & CO. expired on 2nd March, 2017. 6. Thus after the death of director Shri Manish Patadia and also the death of Chartered Accountant Shri Shailesh Dave on 02/03/2017 (copy of death certificate attached), Mr. Ashok Mishra was accounts, tax matters and all the communication with the income tax On 24th May 2017 Mr Ashok Mishra as an the accountant and authorised signatory submitted letter dated 24th May 2017 to the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 7 Mumbai and informed the notice of the change of address from OLD OFFICE ADDRESS of the company as mentioned in the appeal memo in form No.35 from Kartik Opp, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri (W), 400053 to NEW OFFICE ADDRESS 55A Silver Astra, J. B. Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059. It is not within my knowledge why the notice of change of address was submitted to Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 7 Mumbai, instead of CIT (Appeals) (copy attached). t the change of address was wrongly submitted on 24th March, CIT (Appeals)-7 by Mr Ashok Mishra instead of submitting to 4, Mumbai with whom the Appeal was filed. On realising the error and to rectify the same another notice of change was submitted to CIT (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, on 9th January, 2018 vide letter dated 8th January, 2018 with attachment of e acknowledgement of appeal to CIT(Appeals)-4, Mumbai, notifying also the telephone number and email address of the director Mr Ajay Patadia (copy attached). THAT for the assessment year 2009-10 CA Bharat Kanabar filed appeal in Form no 35 against the assessment order on 24th April, 2023. After filing of appeal for assessment year 2009-10, on 25th April, 2023 the notice of CA Bharat Kanabar from the Income Tax portal PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1656/Mum/2023 That aggrieved by the assessment order, the appeal was filed physically on 13th April 2016 with Commissioner of Income tax filling of the appeal was then required and 04/06/2016 vide 187683201040616 and in the appeal memo form 35 filed electronically the accountant Mr Ashok Mishra's email address [e-mail] along with his telephone number 9821261990 was given as he was in charge of all the accounts and he auditor and tax consultants CA Shri Shailesh Dave. Thus the Company had filed an 4 Mumbai with the 4. THAT after the filing of appeal physically on 13th April 2016 but the director Shri Manish Patadia, who was running the business of the Company and 5. THAT after the filing of appeal the Chartered Accountant Shri oprietor of firm M/s. S.B DAVE & CO. expired 6. Thus after the death of director Shri Manish Patadia and also the death of Chartered Accountant Shri Shailesh Dave on 02/03/2017 (copy of death certificate attached), Mr. Ashok Mishra was in-charge of accounts, tax matters and all the communication with the income tax On 24th May 2017 Mr Ashok Mishra as an the accountant and authorised signatory submitted letter dated 24th May 2017 to the Mumbai and informed the notice of the change of address from OLD OFFICE ADDRESS of the company as mentioned in the appeal memo in form No.35 from Kartik Estate, New Link Road, Andheri (W), SS 55A Silver Astra, J. B. 400059. It is not within my knowledge why the notice of change of address was submitted to Commissioner of 7 Mumbai, instead of CIT (Appeals)-4, Mumbai. t the change of address was wrongly submitted on 24th March, 7 by Mr Ashok Mishra instead of submitting to 4, Mumbai with whom the Appeal was filed. On realising the error and to rectify the same another notice of change of address 4, Mumbai, on 9th January, 2018 vide letter dated 8th January, 2018 with attachment of e-filing 4, Mumbai, notifying also ector Mr Ajay 10 CA Bharat Kanabar filed appeal in Form no 35 against the assessment order on 24th April, 2023. 10, on 25th April, 2023 the notice of CA Bharat Kanabar from the Income Tax portal while log in to the appellant's account that appeal for assessment year 2013-14 has been disposed off by CIT Appeals passing ex-parte order and sustained addition of Rs. 1, the appeal that is disposed off on 20th June, 2017 came to the notice of the appellant on 25th April, 2023, i.e. approximately 2100 days after the order is passed. 9. THAT in the appellate order and grounds of decision received by the appellant on 25/04/2023 for order dated 20/06/2017 CIT (Appeals) has observed that: was sent to the Assessing Officer on 07.06.2016 for response and thereafter notice No. 30.05.2017 fixing the hearing on 19.06.2017 was sent through RPAD at the address given by the Appellant. In compliance of notice, no one had attended the proceeding from Appellant's side nor was any communication for adjournment. Therefore, it is found that the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. appeal is decided on merits." Thus hearing fixed on 19/06/2017 for notice sent through RPAD, CIT (Appeals) on the very next day i.e. 20/06/20 Appellant is not interested in prosecuting his appeal and has passed the judgement sufficient opportunity to the 10. It appears from the CIT (Appeals) was informed of the hearing by phone call or through email as appearing in form (Appeals) -4 order was not emailed to the email address, as the order is silent and just speaks ab and not by E-mail. The notice sent by the CIT (Appeals) received by the appellant as the address of the appellant had changed. Order if any sent to the appellant has also not been received by the appellant as the appellant is not aware about the address at which it was sent. Hence your appellant came to know of the ex recently on 25th of April 2023 11. THAT it is not within the knowledge of the appellant that whether any communication whose email address is [e-mail] was given by CA Shailesh Dave in the form 35 filed electronically and hence the appellant had no knowledge of any notice being sent or ex parte order being passed, if the same has been sent to Mr Ashok Mishra. The order is any case silent about it being sent on the e 12. THAT on coming to the knowledge through the IT portal of the hurriedly passed ex (Appeals), the Company decided to file an appeal before ITAT and plead for delay in appeal filing before ITAT, as the ex against the Company by making huge disallowance of Rs. 1,20,82,470 without appreciating that this expenditure amount ha and allowed in the past assessment years, for the Ground that CIT (Appeals) was not justified in passing an ex PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. while log in to the appellant's account that appeal for assessment year 14 has been disposed off by CIT Appeals-4 on 20th June, 2017 by parte order and sustained addition of Rs. 1,20,82,470. Thus the appeal that is disposed off on 20th June, 2017 came to the notice of the appellant on 25th April, 2023, i.e. approximately 2100 days after the order is passed. 9. THAT in the appellate order and grounds of decision received by the lant on 25/04/2023 for order dated 20/06/2017 CIT (Appeals) has observed that: "After receipt of appeal memo in Form No.35, INS was sent to the Assessing Officer on 07.06.2016 for response and thereafter notice No. CIT(A)-4/IT-45/ACIT-16(1)/2016 30.05.2017 fixing the hearing on 19.06.2017 was sent through RPAD at the address given by the Appellant. In compliance of notice, no one had attended the proceeding from Appellant's side nor was any communication for adjournment. Therefore, it is found beyond doubt that the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. appeal is decided on merits." Thus hearing fixed on 19/06/2017 for notice sent through RPAD, CIT (Appeals) -4 has formed the judgement very next day i.e. 20/06/2017 that due to non-attendance the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting his appeal and has passed the judgement against the assessee without giving proper and sufficient opportunity to the appellant. 10. It appears from the CIT (Appeals) -4 order that neither the appellant was informed of the hearing by phone call or through email as appearing in form-35 filed electronically. It also appears that CIT 4 order was not emailed to the email address, as the order is silent and just speaks about the notice being sent to the office by RPAD mail. The notice sent by the CIT (Appeals) -4 was never received by the appellant as the address of the appellant had changed. Order if any sent to the appellant has also not been received by the appellant as the appellant is not aware about the address at which it was sent. Hence your appellant came to know of the ex recently on 25th of April 2023 11. THAT it is not within the knowledge of the appellant that whether any communication or notice or order was sent to Mr Ashok Mishra whose email address is [e-mail] was given by CA Shailesh Dave in the form 35 filed electronically and hence the appellant had no knowledge of any notice being sent or ex parte order , if the same has been sent to Mr Ashok Mishra. The order is any case silent about it being sent on the e-mail address. 12. THAT on coming to the knowledge through the IT portal of the hurriedly passed ex-parte order and aggrieved by the order of CIT als), the Company decided to file an appeal before ITAT and plead for delay in appeal filing before ITAT, as the ex-parte order was held against the Company by making huge disallowance of Rs. 1,20,82,470 without appreciating that this expenditure amount has not been claimed and allowed in the past assessment years, for the Ground that CIT (Appeals) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 1656/Mum/2023 while log in to the appellant's account that appeal for assessment year 4 on 20th June, 2017 by 20,82,470. Thus the appeal that is disposed off on 20th June, 2017 came to the notice of the appellant on 25th April, 2023, i.e. approximately 2100 days after 9. THAT in the appellate order and grounds of decision received by the lant on 25/04/2023 for order dated 20/06/2017 CIT (Appeals)-4 "After receipt of appeal memo in Form No.35, INS-51 was sent to the Assessing Officer on 07.06.2016 for response and 16(1)/2016-17 dated 30.05.2017 fixing the hearing on 19.06.2017 was sent through RPAD at the address given by the Appellant. In compliance of notice, no one had attended the proceeding from Appellant's side nor was any beyond doubt that the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. However, appeal is decided on merits." Thus hearing fixed on 19/06/2017 for 4 has formed the judgement attendance the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting his appeal and has thus against the assessee without giving proper and that neither the appellant was informed of the hearing by phone call or through email as 35 filed electronically. It also appears that CIT 4 order was not emailed to the email address, as the order is out the notice being sent to the office by RPAD 4 was never received by the appellant as the address of the appellant had changed. Order if any sent to the appellant has also not been received by the appellant as the appellant is not aware about the address at which it was sent. Hence your appellant came to know of the ex-parte order 11. THAT it is not within the knowledge of the appellant that whether or notice or order was sent to Mr Ashok Mishra whose email address is [e-mail] was given by CA Shailesh Dave in the form 35 filed electronically and hence the appellant had no knowledge of any notice being sent or ex parte order , if the same has been sent to Mr Ashok Mishra. The order 12. THAT on coming to the knowledge through the IT portal of the parte order and aggrieved by the order of CIT als), the Company decided to file an appeal before ITAT and plead parte order was held against the Company by making huge disallowance of Rs. 1,20,82,470 s not been claimed and allowed in the past assessment years, for the Ground that CIT 13. That It is evident from the order under section 250 issued by the respected CIT (A) contested for Rs. 1,20,82,470 has been wrongly confirmed and he hurriedly passed ex the ex-parte order of the CIT was passed in haste the principles of natural justice by making huge disallowance of Rs. 1,20,82,470. 14. THAT in view of the aforesaid reasons the filing of the appeal is delayed by approximately 2100 days from the passage o within 60 days of the receipt of the order. It is presumed that the order has been served at the wrong address but not through email to the appellant as the appellant do not have date of physically service of the order and the order passed elec appellant on 25/04/2023. 15. THAT the appellant pray to this H'ble Bench of the Tribunal to condone the delay and admit the present appeal, ignoring the technicality and considering the substantial justice, as the d caused by the negligence of the appellant. 16. THAT if the application of the appellant for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalising an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State. 3. We find that delay in filing the appeal has been caused due death of the Director of the assessee co the Chartered Accountant who was dealing the matter of the assessee company. Further, the delay has also been due furnishing details of change of address to the wrong authority i.e. Commissioner of Income accountant of the assessee company. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is a sufficient and bona fide reason for filing the appeal with a delay of 2100 days. We are of the view that assessee has not benefiting in any manner by PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. 13. That It is evident from the order under section 250 issued by the CIT (A) -4 Mumbai that the aforesaid disallowance which was contested for Rs. 1,20,82,470 has been wrongly confirmed and he hurriedly passed ex-parte order dated 20/06/2017. It is evident from parte order of the CIT Appeals dated 20/06/2017 that the order was passed in haste without giving proper notice as also not following the principles of natural justice by making huge disallowance of Rs. 14. THAT in view of the aforesaid reasons the filing of the appeal is delayed by approximately 2100 days from the passage o within 60 days of the receipt of the order. It is presumed that the order has been served at the wrong address but not through email to the appellant as the appellant do not have date of physically service of the order and the order passed electronically has come to the notice of the appellant on 25/04/2023. 15. THAT the appellant pray to this H'ble Bench of the Tribunal to condone the delay and admit the present appeal, ignoring the technicality and considering the substantial justice, as the d caused by the negligence of the appellant. 16. THAT if the application of the appellant for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalising an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State. We find that delay in filing the appeal has been caused due death of the Director of the assessee company as well as death of the Chartered Accountant who was dealing the matter of the assessee company. Further, the delay has also been due furnishing details of change of address to the wrong Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals accountant of the assessee company. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is a sufficient and bona fide reason for filing the appeal with a delay of 2100 days. We are of the view that assessee has not benefiting in any manner by delaying PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA No. 1656/Mum/2023 13. That It is evident from the order under section 250 issued by the aforesaid disallowance which was contested for Rs. 1,20,82,470 has been wrongly confirmed and he parte order dated 20/06/2017. It is evident from Appeals dated 20/06/2017 that the order without giving proper notice as also not following the principles of natural justice by making huge disallowance of Rs. 14. THAT in view of the aforesaid reasons the filing of the appeal is delayed by approximately 2100 days from the passage of order but within 60 days of the receipt of the order. It is presumed that the order has been served at the wrong address but not through email to the appellant as the appellant do not have date of physically service of the tronically has come to the notice of the 15. THAT the appellant pray to this H'ble Bench of the Tribunal to condone the delay and admit the present appeal, ignoring the technicality and considering the substantial justice, as the delay is not 16. THAT if the application of the appellant for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when justice. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalising an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State.” We find that delay in filing the appeal has been caused due mpany as well as death of the Chartered Accountant who was dealing the matter of the assessee company. Further, the delay has also been due to furnishing details of change of address to the wrong appellate tax (Appeals) by the accountant of the assessee company. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is a sufficient and bona fide reason for filing the appeal with a delay of 2100 days. We are of the view that ying the appeal. In view of the aforesaid reason, we condone appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel No. 1 of the appeal and submitted that due the application for condonation of the appeal i.e. the Director and Chartered Accountant dealing with the matter of the assessee company address to wrong destination by the account could not represent submitted that order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be restored back for deciding afresh. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the releva before us has submitted that due the death of the Director and also the death of the Chartered Accountant who was dealing with the company’s financial matters and also due to letter of change of address submitted to Comm Commissioner (Appeals) could be made before the Ld. CIT(A). In our opinion, the assessee is prevented by sufficient reason in CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) taking into consideration submission of the assessee. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee comply all the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. he aforesaid reason, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to Ground No. 1 of the appeal and submitted that due to reasons m the application for condonation of the appeal i.e. (i) the Director and Chartered Accountant dealing with the matter of the assessee company (ii) due to submission of the change of the address to wrong destination by the accountant could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, he submitted that order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be restored back for We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee before us has submitted that due the death of the Director and also the death of the Chartered Accountant who was dealing with the company’s financial matters and also due to letter of change of address submitted to Commissioner (Appeals)-7, Commissioner (Appeals)-4 by the accountant, no representation could be made before the Ld. CIT(A). In our opinion, the assessee is prevented by sufficient reason in non representing before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration submission of the assessee. Before us, the the assessee has given undertaking that he comply all the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. 6 ITA No. 1656/Mum/2023 the delay in filing the the assessee referred to Ground reasons mentioned in (i) due to death of the Director and Chartered Accountant dealing with the matter of of the change of the ant , the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, he submitted that order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be restored back for We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in nt material on record. The assessee before us has submitted that due the death of the Director and also the death of the Chartered Accountant who was dealing with the company’s financial matters and also due to letter of change of 7, instead to the no representation could be made before the Ld. CIT(A). In our opinion, the assessee is representing before the Ld. has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration submission of the assessee. Before us, the given undertaking that he shoud comply all the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above facts and circumstances, we feel it appropriate to order of the Ld. CIT(A) and deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. The other ground academic which are not required to adjudicate upon at this stage. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 03/11/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. cumstances, we feel it appropriate to order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is owed. The other ground on merit are academic which are not required to adjudicate upon at this stage. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for nounced in the open Court on 03/1 Sd/- Sd/ RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai PMI Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7 ITA No. 1656/Mum/2023 cumstances, we feel it appropriate to set-aside the the matter back to him for deciding afresh after taking into consideration submission of the assessee. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is on merit are rendered academic which are not required to adjudicate upon at this stage. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for /11/2023. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai