MANISH KANTILAL HARIA,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 2 (2) (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6278/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Manish Kantilal Haria, the appellant, who challenged an ex-parte appellate order passed by the CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The appeal was initially delayed by 396 days due to the death of the assessee's chartered accountant and the assessee's own non-resident status, which prevented him from attending to his tax matters personally. The ITAT, referencing 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, allowing the appeal to be heard on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789879 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2025
• 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: ADITYA RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ CHAG VIRTUALLY APPEARED; JUSTIFIABLY; PROPERLY EXPLAINING
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J-SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6278/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 Manish Kantilal Haria Anakin assets Holding 4th floor, Airmail pen house, Tejpal Scheme Road No. 5, Plot No. 4, Near Saraf Diagnostic centre, Vile Parle E PAN – AASPH5089C Vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(1) Room No. 630A, 6th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block, KKC (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pankaj Chag (Virtually Appeared) Revenue by Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 11.06.2024 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 2016-17. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 396 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. 6278/Mum/2025 Manish Kantilal Haria, Mumbai. 1. Against assessment order dated 20/05/2022 for A.Y. 2016- 17, I had filed an appeal before Ld. CIT (A), 56 on 17/06/2022 with the help of my C.A. 2. My entire work related to income-tax matter such as computing total income, tax liability, payment of taxes, preparing and filing income-tax returns, replying and attending income-tax notices, looking after assessments, preparing and filing appeals, if required, replying and attending income-tax appeals, supervising my accounts etc. for past more than 20 years. 3. I personally was never aware of any of my personal income tax related matters, attending or replying notices etc. I was wholly relying upon my C.A.'s work, advices and attendance. 4. My C.A. sadly expired at relatively younger age before notices for hearing for first appeal before CIT (A) were received. In view of this, hearing notices received for appeal filed for A.Y. 2016-17 remained unattended and ex-party appellate order was passed. 5. I personally not being aware of income-tax matter and I also being out of India, had no detailed knowledge of hearing notices and notices remained unattended and ex-party appellate order was passed. 6. Sometime before, I received penalty notices for A.Y. 2016-17 for said assessment/appellate order. At that time, I became fully aware of details of such assessment/appeal, demand and penalty matter. 7. Since C.A. looking after my income-tax matter expired, I had to assign work to new C.A. after receiving penalty notices who naturally would to take some time to study and understand the case and draft documents. 8. After assigning work to new C.A. sometime back, I was appraised by him that an appeal will be required to be filed before Hon'ble ITAT against ex-party appellate order by CIT (A) for A.Y. 2016-17. Being non-resident and was out of India, recently, came to India, hence giving this affidavit now. 9. In light above referred circumstances that my C.A. looking after my Income-tax matter for past more than 20 years expired and I personally was not conversant of any Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 6278/Mum/2025 Manish Kantilal Haria, Mumbai. assessment, appeal, penalty matter and I became properly aware and understood of ex- party appellate order and penalty matter recently and only thereafter, I assigned work to new C.A., there is delay in filing this appeal bona fide reasons mentioned hereinbefore which I humbly pray to condone to provide natural justice. 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 to the effect that the chartered accountant who was attending the tax matters had expired, therefore matter could not be attended before Ld. CIT(A) 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 we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 6278/Mum/2025 Manish Kantilal Haria, Mumbai. 6. From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR relied upon the reasons mentioned in the application for seeking condonation of delay which prevented the assessee to represent properly before 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 Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that adequate opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 8. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 6278/Mum/2025 Manish Kantilal Haria, Mumbai. on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 9. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/11/2025 Sd/- Sd Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 25/11/2025 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 "