M/S D B INFRATECH,MUMBAI V. JOINT COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE 32(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6627/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves D B Infratech, the appellant, contesting an order by the CIT(A) which had dismissed their appeal against an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessment had increased the assessed income significantly compared to the returned income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to submit any documents or submissions during the multiple opportunities provided. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to an inadvertent error by an employee, which the Tribunal found reasonable, leading to the condonation of the delay and restoration of the case to CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32719 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others, Marvel Industries Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"D\" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6627/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) D B Infratech B-24, Avanti Apartment, Haridas Nagar, Shimpoli, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400092. [PAN: AAHFD4153G] JCIT, Range 32(1) C-11, Room No. 208, 2nd Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. …………. Vs …………. Appellant Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Mahaveer Jain Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 10.02.2025 27.02.2025 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order, dated 30/05/2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had Dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. When the appeal was taken for hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee pleaded that the delay in filing ITA No. 6627 /Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2013-14 2 the appeal before the Tribunal be condoned and the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without examining the merits granting one more opportunity to the Appellant to make out his case before the CIT(A) on merits. Explain the delay in filing the present appeal, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the delay was caused on account of inadvertent mistake committed by the employee of the company who was tasked with the job of keeping track of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) and was asked to arrange for filing appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A). 3. Per Contra Learned Departmental Representative objected to the condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Supporting the order passed by CIT(A), Learned Departmental Representative submitted that despite having been granted five opportunities by the CIT(A), the Assessee failed to file any submissions/documents before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal. Referring to paragraph 4.3 of the order impugned, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A) had also given findings on merit. 4. We have considered the rival submission and have perused the material on record. 5. On perusal of record we find that assessment was framed on the Assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act at assessed income of INR.2,46,99,950/- as against returned income of INR.1,62,47,142. In appeal preferred before CIT(A) against the aforesaid Assessment Order, no submissions/documents were filed. Resulting in dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). Being ITA No. 6627 /Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2013-14 3 aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We find that the order impugned by way of the present appeal was passed by the CIT(A) on 30/05/2023 and the appeal was filed by the Assessee on 18/12/2024. Though in the defect memo issued by the registry it has been stated that there was a delay of 140 days in filing the appeal, we find that the Assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay of 508 days in filing the present appeal. The Appellant has filed application seeking condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that that the delay was caused on account of inadvertent error committed by an employee of the company. Despite receiving instructions to forward the copy of the impugned order to the tax consultant for filing appeal, the employee inadvertently missed out on doing so. When the details were sought regarding the status of appeal filed against the order impugned, the management of the Assessee-firm got to know about the aforesaid mistake committed by the employee. Soon thereafter, steps were taken to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken and that the aforesaid doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner, more so in circumstances where a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late (as is the case in appeal before us). Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest ITA No. 6627 /Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2013-14 4 that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. We note that in the present case we note that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee without returning an independent finding on merit. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee had relied upon the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Marvel Industries Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai [ITA No. 779/MUM/2022, dated 19/07/2022] wherein, in somewhat similar facts and circumstances, it was held that irrespective of the non- appearance of an assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) was required to deal with the issue raised by the Assessee on merits in view of the provisions contained in Section 250(2)(a) and 250(6) of the Act. Thus, we find merit in Assessee’s plea of restoring the issues raised back to the file of CIT(A). 7. Taking note of the above, we condone the delay of 508 days in filing the present appeal since we are of the view that the Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the present appeal before the Tribunal in the prescribed time. Further given the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to grant the Assessee one more opportunity to advance arguments on merits of the grounds raised in appeal before CIT(A). Accordingly, we set-aside the Order, dated 30/05/2023, passed by the CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of CIT(A) with the directions to decide the ground raised by the assessee in appeal on merits as per law. The Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application Portal. The Assessee is also directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings and forthwith file written submissions and documents in support of the grounds raised in appeal before the ITA No. 6627 /Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2013-14 5 CIT(A). It is clarified that the CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. However, in case the Assessee fails to enter appearance and/or fails to file submissions/documents in response to notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide the appeal the ground raised on merits on the basis of material on record. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 4 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. 8. In terms of above, the present appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Renu Jauhri) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंकDated : 27.02.2025 Karishma J. Pawar, Stenographer ITA No. 6627 /Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2013-14 6 आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त/ Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीयप्रदिदनदध, आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, म ुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपिप्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यकपुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "