Naveenkumar Gupta, Uttar Pradesh V. ITO NFAC, National e assessment centre

ITA 3704/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0663 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANUJ KISNADWALA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) I.T.A. No. 3704/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Naveen Kumar Gupta 501 Moon Court, T5 Jaypee Greens, Near Pari Chowk, Mathurapur, Chori, Gautam Buddha Nagar Uttar Pradesh-201310. PAN : AACPG1470E Vs. ITO, NFAC, National e assessment Centre Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department by Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Date of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement 04.09.2024 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The appellant filed an appeal in this case and the main ground of appeal is that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A) for short] has erred in not codoning the delay 1010 days in filing the appeal before him. The main grievance of the appellant is that he has got sufficient reasons for not filing the appeal in time and hence application of the appellant for condonation of delay should have been allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) and he has got good grounds of appeal on merits to succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay itself, as mentioned in the grounds of appeal filed before the ITAT, Mumbai. Naveen Kumar Gupta 2 2. During the course of hearing before the Bench, the Ld. AR of the appellant has filed an Affidavit of the appellant as well as Chartered Accountant and argued that in these extra ordinary circumstances, the delay should be condoned and the appeal is to be allowed. It was pleaded that the appellant is a Doctor by profession and due to extreme financial difficulties, all his properties were auctioned by the Government Authorities. The appellant has also shifted his residence to Delhi. Before shifting to Delhi, the appellant has given all the papers to his Chartered Accountant to file an appeal and it appears that the Chartered Accountant has not filed the appeal. As there is no fault on the part of the appellant, the delay may be condoned. The Chartered Accountant of the appellant has also filed an Affidavit stating that his office was not operational due to Covid Pandemic and also many of his employees left the office, the appeal was not filed by him. In view of the above, the delay may be condoned, it was argued before the Bench by Ld. Counsel of the appellant. 3. Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) because there is a huge delay of 1010 days and the explanation given by the appellant is not proper. Hence, the appellant’s appeal should not be allowed. 4. After hearing both sides it is decided to condone the delay for filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Due to the Covid Pandemic and also personal difficulties of the appellant and also because the fault is on the Chartered Accountant, the appeal could not be filed. But the fact remains that there is a huge delay even after Covid Pandamic for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the same, cost of Rs. 5000/- is levied on the appellant and the delay is condoned. This amount should be paid to the Income Tax Department. 5. As the delay is condoned and issues were not adjudicated on merits, file is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case on merits. Naveen Kumar Gupta 3 6. The appeal of the appellant is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4 th September, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (Omkareshwar Chidara) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai : 04.09.2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai