M/S NAM TECHNOLOGIES PRIAVTE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. DCIT -14(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8031/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Nam Technologies Private Limited appealing against the order of the CIT(A) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the reopening of assessment under section 148 and addition of Rs.5,55,00,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had initially declined to admit the Assessee's appeal due to a 117-day delay, citing insufficient cause for condonation. The Tribunal found that the Assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' due to non-receipt of the notice and prevailing financial hardships. Emphasizing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840182 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal
• Section: 147; 148; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 8031/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Nam Technologies Private Limited, 4 Neelkanth Shopping Arcade, Opp. Fine Arts Hall, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 (PAN : AAFCA 9204 L ) Vs. DCIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai, Room No. 432, 4th floor, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, SR. DR Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026 O R D E R PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 2nd September, 2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, CIT(A)] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.8031/MUM/2025 M/S Nam Technologies Private Limited, AY 2013-14 i. “That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in passing the appellate order, which is invalid and bad in law. ii. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act which is illegal and bad in law. iii. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Act. iv. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.5,55,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. v. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessment order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. At the threshold, it is observed that the CIT(A) declined to admit the Assessee’s appeal on the grounds of a 117-day delay, citing a failure to provide sufficient cause or documentary evidence for condonation 2.1 The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the failure to respond to the CIT(A)’s notice regarding the delay was neither intentional nor contumacious. It was contended that the notice issued by the NFAC was not served upon or noticed by the Assessee in time. The Ld. Counsel argued that the Assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity to demonstrate \"sufficient cause\"— which primarily involved the non-availability of professional counsel and prevailing financial hardships. A plea was made to remit the matter to allow the Assessee to formalize the condonation request via a sworn affidavit and supporting evidence. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the ma- terial on record. 3.1 It is a settled principle of law that the expression \"sufficient cause\" must receive a liberal construction to advance the cause Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.8031/MUM/2025 M/S Nam Technologies Private Limited, AY 2013-14 of substantial justice. When technical considerations and the cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the lat- ter must prevail. 3.2 In the instant case, the Assessee had briefly explained the delay in Column 15 of Form No. 35. However, the CIT(A) dis- missed the appeal in limine without the benefit of a formal con- donation petition or affidavit, as the Assessee failed to respond to the statutory notice. The Assessee’s primary contention—that this notice was not received—touches upon the principles of nat- ural justice. 3.3 Justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done. We find that the Assessee deserves a one more opportunity to explain the lapse of 117 days. A delay of this dura- tion is not so inordinate as to suggest a lack of bona fides or a deliberate abandonment of the right to appeal, especially given the high stakes involved (an addition of Rs. 5.55 Crores). 3.4 In light of the above, and to ensure that the Assessee is not non-suited on purely technical grounds without a hearing on me- rits, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with the direction to the Assessee to file a formal petition for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit and relevant documentary evidence, before the ld CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall evaluate the sufficiency of the cause shown in accor- dance with the law. Should the delay be condoned, the Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on their Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.8031/MUM/2025 M/S Nam Technologies Private Limited, AY 2013-14 merits after providing the Assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. 4. In view of the above direction, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 25th February, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Kavitha Rajagopal) (Om Prakash Kant) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 25th February, 2026 Ankit, Sr.P.S. Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. 5. Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "