MAHESH KRISHNAKANT PANDEY,GHATKOPAR WEST V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27 2 2 MUMBAI , VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1249/MUM/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mahesh K. Pandey against the orders of the AO and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which were passed ex-parte. The AO had made additions to the assessee's income amounting to Rs. 34,00,000, which included deposits during demonetization and other credit entries. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions. The assessee, represented by a new advocate, argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the old age of his previous tax consultant, who failed to respond timely to notices and inform the assessee about the orders. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, condoned the delay, and restored the case to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126350 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KR. G. SUBRAMANYAM
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice; Recovery proceedings; Grounds of appeal; Principal; Dismissed; National Faceless Appeal; Commissioner; Restored; E-mail; Order under section 254
• Section: 250; 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1249/MUM/2025(AY: 2017–18) (Physical hearing) Mahesh K. Pandey Room No. 18, Dayabhai Patel Chawl, Agra Road, Behind Old Police Station, Ghatkopar (West) PIN-400086. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(2)(2), 4th floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703. PAN/GIR No. AGCPP4389D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Jitendra Singh Advocate Revenue by Shri. Vijay Kr. G. Subramanyam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 21 /04/2025 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH ,JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assesses is preferred against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A), Mumbai-25/10187/2019-20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"Act\"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The rival submissions of the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is delay of 269 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed the affidavit for explaining the cause of dealy. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that AO as well as CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order. The assessee ITA no. 1249/MUM/2025 Mahesh Krishkant Pandey 2 appointed tax consultant to persue his assessment as well as first appeal before CIT(A). His tax and consultant, due to his old age was not able to timely response to various notices, which resulted in passing ex-parte order in confirming the action of AO. Order of CIT(A) was also sent on the e-mail of tax consultant who has not informed the assessee in time. The assessee came to know about passing of order by Ld. CIT(A) when notice of recovery of tax demand was served upon the assessee vide notice dated 10.01.2025. The assessee immediately approached the present representative and after collecting necessary documents filed the present appeal. The assessee is really interested in perusing his appeal. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed; he would suffer prejudice if he is not given opportunity to contest the case on merit. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is not going to be benefited by filing appeal belatedly; rather there are chances that delay may not be condoned and appeal may be dismissed as unadmitted. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future and in making timely compliance. On merits of the case, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that AO has also passed assessment order under section 144, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the AO with the direction to pass the order afresh. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submits that assessee is a habitual defaulter. The assessee has not contested before AO as well as before CIT(A) and again filed this appeal belatedly. The assessee has not shown any reasonable cause for condoning the delay. The assessee is relying upon self- serving story without disclosing any reasonable cause for condoning the delay. ITA no. 1249/MUM/2025 Mahesh Krishkant Pandey 3 The Ld. DR for the revenue submit that delay may not be condoned in filing appeal. In alternating and without prejudice submission, the Ld. DR for the revenue submit that in case, this bench is of the view that assessee deserve any leniency delay maybe condoned imposing a heavy cost on assessee or the assessee must furnish bank guarantee so that he may contest the proceeding before lower authority in a timely manner. 4. I have considered the rival submission of both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities. Firstly, I will consider the plea of assessee for condoning the delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. Before me, the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that there is no intentional of deliberate delay in filing appeal before Tribunal, due to old age of assessee’s consultant who has not taken timely step for making response before CIT(A) nor he informed the assessee in time. It was also argued by Ld. AR that he undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in future. To support such contention, the assessee has filed his own affidavit. Considering the overall facts and circumstance, that assessee is interested in pursuing his case on merit and the assessee is not going to be benefited by filing appeal belatedly. Further, considering the principal of law on limitation that when technical consideration is pitted against the cause of substantial justice, cause of substantial justice must be proffered. Therefore, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Now adverting to merit of the case. 5. I find that AO while passing the assessment order made addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- which includes Rs. 14,50,000/- deposits during demonetization and other credit entries of Rs. 19,50,652/-. The AO taxed the addition u/s. 69A and ITA no. 1249/MUM/2025 Mahesh Krishkant Pandey 4 section 115BBE of the Act. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO in ex- parte order. Considering the fact that AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has passed that order in absence of any submission. Therefore, keeping in view the Principal of natural justice, the assessee is give one more opportunity to contest the case on merit, thus, the matter is restored back to the file of AO to pass the assessment order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the assessment order the AO shall provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance. So far as objection of Ld. DR for the revenue is concerned that assessee should be burdened with the condition of cost, I find that for filing the present appeal, the assessee had to pay appeal fees of Rs. 10,000/-, moreover the matter is restored back to the file of AO. Thus, considering the nature of addition no cost of import on the assessee. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 21.04.2025. Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 21 /04/2025 Anandi Nambi, Steno ITA no. 1249/MUM/2025 Mahesh Krishkant Pandey 5 Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. "