ELITE RESIDENCY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA V. CPC - MUM-C-197(1) , Mumbai

ITA 2869/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0275 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MURTAZA QURESH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H(SMC)’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2869/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Elite Residency Co– operative Housing Society Limited Elite Residency CHSL, 1/1887, Dr. Anandrao Nair Rd, Mumbai Central, Agripada, Mumbai–400011. Vs. CPC MUM–C–197(1) Mumbai-. PAN/GIR No. AAAAE4374J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Murtaza Quresh Ghadiali a/w Ms. Sabeena Damkhanawala Revenue by Shri. Asif Karmali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement 08/08/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed in Appeal no. ADDL/JCIT (A) PATNA/10002/2016–17 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] ITA no. 2869 /MUM/2024 Elite Residency Co–operative Housing Society Limited 2 u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's appeal upon rejection of assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the same. 2. At the very outset, learned representative for the appellant assessee has, apart from the submissions related to the merits, submitted that the assessee received intimation order dated 04.02.2019 passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2017–18. The assessee raised his grievance for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act against the said demand on the income tax portal. Thereafter, continued raising the grievances on 18.02.2019, 17.02.2020, 28.07.2021, 16,10.2021, 26.11.2021, 09.12.2022. Assessee received information on 19.05.2023 that his grievance has been rejected on 25.11.2023. Due to these reasons, the appeal before learned CIT(A) could not be filed within statutory period. Prayed to set aside impugned order and provide opportunity of hearing. 3. Learned DR has supported the impugned order. 4. We have heard the learned representatives for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee has filed first appeal before learned CIT(A) on 07.12.2023 against the rectification order dated 04.02.2019 passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The first appeal was dismissed by the first appellate authority solely upon rejection of ITA no. 2869 /MUM/2024 Elite Residency Co–operative Housing Society Limited 3 assessee’s prayer on condonation of delay of 1736 days in filing the same. 6. The statutory period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay of 1736 days. 7. We find that the assessee, continued raising its grievances for the claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act since 18.02.2019 till the rejection order intimated on 19.05.2023. It seems that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that his grievances shall be resolved through income tax portal in due course of time. This caused a huge delay of 1736 days in filing first appeal before learned CIT(A). 8. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed. The provisions relating to the condonation of delay, need to be interpreted liberally. ITA no. 2869 /MUM/2024 Elite Residency Co–operative Housing Society Limited 4 9. The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal, is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In view of the explanation submitted by the assessee as hereinabove, it deems just and proper to condone the said delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2024 is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before first appellant authority i.e learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellant authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. Order pronounced in open court today on 08.08.2024 Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 08/08/2024 Anandi Nambi, Steno 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//