MADHURI SUNIL ZODE,MUMBAI V. ITO, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

MA 293/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application by the assessee, Madhuri Sunil Zode, seeking recall of an earlier order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had refused to condone a significant delay in filing an appeal. The assessee argued that the Tribunal had made factual misdescriptions and violated principles of natural justice by relying on a decision not cited during the hearing. Additionally, the assessee contended that a binding jurisdictional precedent was overlooked. The Tribunal, however, found these arguments unconvincing, stating that the details about the number of consultants were peripheral and did not affect the fundamental finding regarding the delay. The Tribunal also noted that references to judicial precedents were appropriate and did not require a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837308 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd vs. Hon'ble Supreme Court, P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEYAQAT ALI AAFAQUI
• Assessee Lawyers: KSHIPRA SINGHVI; AW
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA No.293/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 419/MUM/2025) Assessment Years: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Flat No.8, 8th floor, Singers Wood, 27th Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050 Vs. ITO, Ward 20(2)(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400012 PAN NO- AAAPZ1530G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Kshipra Singhvi, CA a/w Ms. Nehni Singhvi, CA & Ms. Prajakta Jain, CA. Department by : Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 19/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of the present Miscellaneous Application, the assessee seeks recall of the order dated 21 August 2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 419/MUM/2025 for Assessment Year 2020-21. Printed from counselvise.com Madhuri Suni Zode 2 MA No. 293/MUM/2025 2. The learned counsel for the Assessee contended that the impugned order suffers from \"mistakes apparent from the record\" on the following grounds: (i) Factual Misdescription: The Tribunal erroneously noted that the Assessee sought a legal opinion from a single consultant, whereas opinions were, in fact, obtained from two independent consultants regarding the merits of the appeal following the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd (Supra). (ii) Violation of Natural Justice: The Tribunal, in its findings, relied upon the decision in P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556, which was neither cited by the Revenue nor the Assessee during the hearing, thereby depriving the Assessee of an opportunity to distinguish the same.. (iii) Non-Consideration of Binding Precedent: The Assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (ITA No. 493/2015). It was argued that although this was not specifically cited during the original hearing, its non- consideration constitutes an error apparent from the record as it is a binding jurisdictional precedent. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record, including the Miscellaneous Application. The grievance of the assessee, in Printed from counselvise.com Madhuri Suni Zode 3 MA No. 293/MUM/2025 substance, pertains to the Tribunal’s earlier refusal to condone the delay of more than 542 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the explanation furnished and the governing judicial principles, found the reasons advanced for the delay to be unsatisfactory and declined to grant condonation. 4. Upon careful consideration, we find the Assessee’s arguments untenable for the reasons, firstly regarding factual error, the distinction between one consultant or two is a peripheral detail that does not alter the fundamental finding that the explanation provided for the 542-day delay lacked bona fides or sufficient cause, secondly, on judicial guidance, it is a settled principle that the Tribunal may refer to the jurisprudence of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts to inform its reasoning on the \"condonation of delay.\" Such references serve as guiding legal principles and do not necessitate a fresh hearing unless they introduce an entirely new case against the party. 5. It is trite law that while judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Courts provide guiding principles on condonation of delay, the determinative factor remains the Court’s satisfaction regarding the sufficiency and acceptability of the explanation offered. In the present case, the Tribunal, upon an appreciation of the entirety of facts and circumstances, reached a considered conclusion that the explanation did not merit acceptance. Printed from counselvise.com Madhuri Suni Zode 4 MA No. 293/MUM/2025 6. The submissions now canvassed seek, in effect, a re- examination of the very reasoning and conclusions already rendered. Such an exercise would plainly amount to a review of the earlier order, which lies beyond the limited jurisdiction conferred under section 254(2) of the Act. The rectification power is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to revisiting or re- adjudicating issues on merits. 7. In view of the foregoing, we find no mistake apparent from the record warranting interference. 8. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 19/02/2026 Ankit, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "