SHEKHAR ANANDRAO BAGAL, MUMBAI V. LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), , MUMBAI

ITA 365/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6944 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAGNATH PASALE
• Section: 147; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.365/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Shekhar Anandrao Bagal, 1/4 Priya Girish Vihar CHS, V.N. Purav Marg, Sion Chunabhatti, Mumbai - 400022 PAN: AFYPB0645R Vs. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’), Delhi Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 41(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27. 05. 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29. 05. 2024 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.11.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. ITA No.365/MUM/2024 M/s. Shekhar Anandrao Bagal 2 2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 28.05.2023 under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act made the addition of Rs.4,37,500/- under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act which was challenged by the assessee before the Ld. Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the reason “that there was delay of 30 days in filing the first appeal. Though the assessee has claimed in form No.35 that delay was due to ill health of the assessee, however, did not furnish any documentary evidence/medical certificate etc.”. 3. We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As the delay is minuscule and based on the medical/health condition of the assessee, hence considering the reason of health condition as genuine and bonafide and even otherwise not finding any reason or material contrary to the claim of the assessee, we are inclined to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim before the Ld. Commissioner. 4. We also direct the assessee to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essential/required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. 5. Hence, the case is remanded accordingly. ITA No.365/MUM/2024 M/s. Shekhar Anandrao Bagal 3 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHARI) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.