MR. BAJARANGAPRASAD SAMBHUPRASAD PATWA ,MUMBAI V. ITO, WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 213/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Bajarangaprasad Sambhuprasad Patwa, a small-time craftsman and illiterate, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which dismissed his appeal for want of prosecution. The AO had reopened the assessment for AY 2011-12 based on information that the assessee had sold a property, assessing the entire sale consideration as Short Term Capital Gain due to lack of details. Additionally, a receipt of Rs. 9,14,666 was incorrectly assessed as business income. The assessee, unaware of the notices and unable to appear before the CIT(A), filed a belated appeal before the ITAT, which was also delayed due to similar reasons. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for delay and decided to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present his case before the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471301 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: USHA GAIKWAD
• Assessee Lawyers: DINKLE HARIYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 213/Mum/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mr. Bajarangaprasad Sambhuprasad Patwa, Room No. 53, 5th Floor, Shiv Dham Complex, Madhuban Baug, Goregaon, Mumbai PAN : AGVPP5838J vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(1), Room No. 854A, 8th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue by : Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 05-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05-03-2025 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt.24-12-2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and it relates to AY. 2011-12. 2. The Ld.AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a small time craftsman doing handwork on garments. Further, he is also illiterate. Since the business of doing handwork on garments has become outdated, he is not having much income also. Further, he does 2 ITA No. 213/Mum/2025 not have any knowledge about income tax. The AO has reopened the assessment of the year under consideration on the basis of information that the assessee had sold a property. However, in the best judgement assessment, the AO assessed the entire sale consideration as Short Term Capital Gain in the absence of relevant details. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has not sold any property as observed by the AO. Hence, the assessment of Short Term Capital Gain was not justified. Besides the above, the AO also assessed the receipt of Rs. 9,14,666/- as business income of the assessee, which is also not correct. Though the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), he could not appear before him as he was not aware of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the assessee was not advised to file condonation petition at the time of hearing. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Since the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was served to the email ID of the tax consultant, the assessee was not aware of the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the tax consultant is an asthmatic patient and he was not tech savvy. Hence he could not have access to the notices sent by email. The Ld.AR also submitted that the appeal filed before ITAT is also belated by around 1000 days. All these reasons cited above have cumulatively contributed to the delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the ITAT. Accordingly, the Ld.AR submitted that considering the position of the assessee, the Bench may take a lenient view in condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. 2.1. The Ld.AR also prayed that both the issues may be restored to the file of the AO as the assessee is required to furnish certain documents to prove that he has not earned any Short Term Capital Gain and also documents relating to the alleged business income. 3. We heard the Ld.DR and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions made by the Ld.AR as well as the averments made in the affidavit, we are of the view that there is a reasonable cause for the 3 ITA No. 213/Mum/2025 assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A) as well as before ITAT. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and also before the ITAT. 4. We noticed that the assessee did not furnish any details before both the tax authorities. Hence both the issues require examination by considering relevant documents. Accordingly, we are of the view that, in the interests of natural justice, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the AO for examining them afresh. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the AO for expeditious disposal of the assessment. After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05-03-2025 Sd/- Sd/- [SANDEEP GOSAIN] [B.R. BASKARAN] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 05-03-2025 TNMM 4 ITA No. 213/Mum/2025 Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai "