MALAN MOHAN KHADE,MUMBAI V. JURISDICTION WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5610/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Malan Mohan Khade, the appellant, who challenged an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The appellant faced a delay of 313 days in filing the appeal due to medical reasons and lack of awareness about the appeal's disposal, which was compounded by his treatment for Lumbar Spondylosis. The ITAT, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., prioritized substantial justice over technicalities and condoned the delay. The case was then remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the appellant another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783677 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. K. CHATURVEDI; VIRTUALLY
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL SATHE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5610/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2018-19 Malan Mohan Khade 5/C/13, Satpuda Society, Plot No. 1, NNP Colony, Aarey colony, Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400065. PAN – EHYPK4126 Vs ITO, Ward – 41(4)(2) Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anil Sathe Revenue by Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. DR (Virtually) Date of Hearing 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. At the very outset, I noticed that there is delay of 313 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 5610//Mum/2025 Malan Mohan Khade., Mumbai. 1. The assessment in my case for assessment year 2018-19, was completed on 29th March 2023, resulting in addition of Rs. 28,95,000/- to my income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 2. Aggrieved by those additions I filed an appeal to the Commissioner of income tax, Appeal (CIT Appeal) on 29th September 2023. 3. After filing the appeal, I was able to comply with my obligations in regard to tax compliances on account of my medical condition. I was diagnosed with a medical condition, Lumbar Spondylosis and hence I started undergoing treatment in my hometown Waduj, Satara from April 2023. Since then, I am located in my hometown for the treatment till date. 4. In the month of August 2025 I came to know that my appeal was disposed of by the CIT Appeal, for Assessment Year 2018- 19 on 30th August 2024, consequently the appeal was due for filing before the tribunal on or before 28th October 2024. 5. I came to know about the proceedings being dismissed in my case by the CIT Appeal when I was in receipt of a recovery notice issued in my case. 6. Being a homemaker, I never had any taxable income and was never liable to file a return of income. This is the only Income Tax proceeding which I am facing. 7. I immediately contacted my relatives/friends who advised me that a senior counsel should be consulted in this matter and to proceed with the matter further on seeking advice from him. 8. Accordingly, I consulted a tax counsel, who has now advised me to file an appeal after examining the papers of my case and has instructed his office to prepare the requisite documents for my signature and further action. 9. Only the cumulative effect, of circumstances specific to my own situation that this appeal is significantly delayed. As I affirm this affidavit the delay is around 11 months. 10. In the above circumstances I pray that the delay caused is inadvertent and deserves to be condoned. For your kindness I will remain ever obliged. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 5610//Mum/2025 Malan Mohan Khade., Mumbai. 4. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same. 5. 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& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC),wherein it has been held that where 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 the Tribunal. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 6. From the records, I noticed that assessee was ex-parte before AO and Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench that there was Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 5610//Mum/2025 Malan Mohan Khade., Mumbai. reasonable cause as explained in the application for condonation of delay which prevented the assessee to represent properly before AO and Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 7. 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 AO and Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before AO. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 8. Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 5610//Mum/2025 Malan Mohan Khade., Mumbai. 9. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/11/2025 Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 04/11/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "