LATE DEBABRATA SINHA RAY,MUMBAI V. ITO 23(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2958/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the legal heir of Late Debabrata Sinha Ray against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was initially time-barred by 638 days, for which the assessee sought condonation of delay. The ITAT, referencing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji, prioritized substantial justice over technicalities and condoned the delay. The assessee had been ex-parte before the CIT(A), and the ITAT decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need for the assessee to remain cooperative and not seek adjournments on frivolous grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 706170 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH THAKURDESAI; GAURAV JADHAV
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2958/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Late Debabrata Sinha Ray (Mrs. Subrata Ray Legal heir) 55, Block 3, Kendriya Vihar, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. Vs. ITO, 23(1)(1) 5th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AAAPS7088J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ashish Thakurdesai & Shri Gaurav jadhav Revenue by Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 27.05.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. At the outset, I noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by limitation about 638 days and in this regard an application for seeking 2 ITA No. 2958/Mum/2025 Late Debarata Sinha Ray., Mumbai condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: 3 ITA No. 2958/Mum/2025 Late Debarata Sinha Ray., Mumbai 4 ITA No. 2958/Mum/2025 Late Debarata Sinha Ray., Mumbai 3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same. 4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression \"sufficient cause\" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. From the records, I also noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A) and the reasons for non-appearing before Ld. CIT(A) is the same which is mentioned in the detailed affidavit cited above. 5 ITA No. 2958/Mum/2025 Late Debarata Sinha Ray., Mumbai 6. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Since there was non cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on account of condonation of delay and also for non appearance before Ld. CIT(A) is imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 7. Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 6 ITA No. 2958/Mum/2025 Late Debarata Sinha Ray., Mumbai 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2025. Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 30/06/2025 KRK, Sr. PS आदेश की \bितिलिप अ\u000eेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. \u000eथ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0019 / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु\u0019(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स\u000eािपत ित //True Copy// 1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई / ITAT, Mumbai "