MR. PRASHANT PAWAR ,MUMBAI V. ITO, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6518/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the assessee, Prashant Pawar, against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeals were related to a quantum assessment and a penalty order, both of which were initially dismissed due to procedural non-compliance and substantial delays in filing. The tribunal found that the assessee had not adequately pursued the appeals, leading to their dismissal on technical grounds rather than substantive merits. The tribunal emphasized the need for the assessee to actively engage in the legal process and comply with procedural requirements, highlighting the balance between ensuring justice and maintaining the efficiency of the judicial system.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40295 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfield Ltd. AIR 196 SC 361
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.A. DHYANI
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R. SINGH AKSHAY PAWAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 144; 250; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6517/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) AND ITA No. 6518/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Prashant Pawar 1801, Jayshree CHSL, Navy Nagar Colony, Malad West, Mumbai-400064 v/s. बनाम ITO, Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai BKC, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051 \u0001थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADPP3644C Appellant/अपीलाथ\u0007 .. Respondent/\b\tतवाद\r Assessee by : Shri Ajay R. Singh/ Akshay Pawar Revenue by : Mr. R. A. Dhyani,DR Date of Hearing 04.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The above captioned two appeals, being quantum and penalty appeals respectively, are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 16.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14.Since both the appeals are interlinked, pertaining to the same assessment year heard together, they are being the sake of brevity. We first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No. 6517/Mum/2024 2. The assessee in ld.CIT(A) passed the appellate order delay in filing of appeal, without sufficient opportunity of hearing. Assessing officer erred in re opening the case on wrong facts and passing the ex parte order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 income at Rs. 61,00,000 61,00,000/- as income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. is pleaded that The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing may be provided and application for condo ld. CIT(A) may be allowed, since the balance convenience lies in favour of the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the 144 of the Act on account of non compliance by Even before the ld.CIT(A),there was no compliance by the assessee despite several opportunities of hearing accorded by him compliance electronically ITA No. 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 , pertaining to the same assessment year they are being adjudicated vide this composite order for We first take up the quantum appeal in: ITA No. 6517/Mum/2024(Quantum appeal) in various grounds of appeal has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) passed the appellate order dismissing his appeal on account of without sufficient opportunity of hearing. Assessing officer erred in re opening the case on wrong facts and passing parte order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and also in determining the income at Rs. 61,00,000/- by treating the Fixed Deposit of Rs. as income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing may be provided and application for condonation of delay rejected by the ld. CIT(A) may be allowed, since the balance convenience lies in favour of facts of the case are that the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act on account of non compliance by the assessee before the ld.AO. Even before the ld.CIT(A),there was no compliance by the assessee despite several opportunities of hearing accorded by him, apart from making part compliance electronically. The appellate authority noticed that P a g e | 2 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Prashant Pawar , pertaining to the same assessment year and adjudicated vide this composite order for pleaded that the dismissing his appeal on account of without sufficient opportunity of hearing. The Id. Assessing officer erred in re opening the case on wrong facts and passing in determining the total by treating the Fixed Deposit of Rs. as income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. It The Assessee further prays that the opportunity of hearing rejected by the ld. CIT(A) may be allowed, since the balance convenience lies in favour of assessment order was passed u/s the assessee before the ld.AO. Even before the ld.CIT(A),there was no compliance by the assessee despite , apart from making part that the appeal of the assessee was delayed by 280 days even after days pertaining to COVID period. observed that “for condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party Invoking the aid of the provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfield Ltd. AIR 196 SC 361 has held that the party will have to show sufficient cause not only for not filing the appeal on the last day but to explain the delay made thereafter day by day. In other words, in showing sufficient condoning the delay the party may be called upon to explain for the whole of the delay covered by the period between the last day prescribed for filing the appeal and the day on which the appeal is filed. It has also been held in this case that that even after sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretiona sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section provisions of Sec 249 of the Act as both the provisions stipulate that after expiry of stipulated period of limitation as per provisions of the relevant Act, if the court is satisfied that there was a \"sufficient cause\" for non then the appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits by condoning the delay.”Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and ITA No. 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 the assessee was delayed by 280 days even after excluding the delay of 124 days pertaining to COVID period. The ld.CIT(A) after taking into account condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party Invoking the aid of the provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in e case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfield Ltd. AIR 196 SC 361 has held that the party will have to show sufficient cause not only for not filing the appeal on the last day but to explain the delay made thereafter day by day. In other words, in showing sufficient condoning the delay the party may be called upon to explain for the whole of the delay covered by the period between the last day prescribed for filing the appeal and the day on which the appeal is filed. It has also been held in this case that it is necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by s.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section 5 of The Limitation Act 1961 are parametria to the provisions of Sec 249 of the Act as both the provisions stipulate that after expiry of stipulated period of limitation as per provisions of the relevant Act, if the court is satisfied fficient cause\" for non-presenting the appeal within prescribed period, then the appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits by condoning the the ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and P a g e | 3 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Prashant Pawar excluding the delay of 124 The ld.CIT(A) after taking into account condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party Invoking the aid of the provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in e case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfield Ltd. AIR 196 SC 361 has held that the party will have to show sufficient cause not only for not filing the appeal on the last day but to explain the delay made thereafter day by day. In other words, in showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay the party may be called upon to explain for the whole of the delay covered by the period between the last day prescribed for filing the appeal and the day on it is necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition ry jurisdiction vested in the Court by s.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. Here, it is pertinent to 5 of The Limitation Act 1961 are parametria to the provisions of Sec 249 of the Act as both the provisions stipulate that after expiry of stipulated period of limitation as per provisions of the relevant Act, if the court is satisfied presenting the appeal within prescribed period, then the appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits by condoning the the ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and consequently,the appeal of the assessee was dismi 249(2) of the Act. 4. Before us, the ld.ARs the lower authorities following the ld.DR however, supported the orders of aut assessee is habitually non compliant. citing reasons for the delay in filing of appeal before first appellate authority.It is, inter alia submitted that there was in fact delay of 40 partly on account of Covid Chartered Accountant,not being conversant with tax proceedings. assessee had to engage another CA later.It is submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor with any malicious intention but on account of bonafide reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. 5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the contents of the appellate orders and also the aff section 249(2) of the Act, any appeal before the CIT(A) is required to be filed in electronic mode within 30 days of receipt of the order and demand notice by the appellant. Further, section 249(3) provides that the an appeal filed after the prescribed due date if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The assessee failed to cite any reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the ITA No. 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in terms of section the ld.ARs pleaded for restoration of the appeal before the lower authorities following the principles of natural justice. Per contra t ld.DR however, supported the orders of authorities below stating that the assessee is habitually non compliant. The assessee has also filed an affidavit citing reasons for the delay in filing of appeal before first appellate authority.It inter alia submitted that there was in fact delay of 402 days which occurred ovid related reasons and partly on account of t ,not being conversant with tax proceedings. assessee had to engage another CA later.It is submitted that the delay was deliberate nor with any malicious intention but on account of bonafide reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the contents of s and also the affidavit submitted by the assessee section 249(2) of the Act, any appeal before the CIT(A) is required to be filed in electronic mode within 30 days of receipt of the order and demand notice by the appellant. Further, section 249(3) provides that the CIT(A) may admit an appeal filed after the prescribed due date if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. failed to cite any reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the P a g e | 4 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Prashant Pawar ssed in terms of section pleaded for restoration of the appeal before principles of natural justice. Per contra the horities below stating that the The assessee has also filed an affidavit citing reasons for the delay in filing of appeal before first appellate authority.It 2 days which occurred reasons and partly on account of the earlier ,not being conversant with tax proceedings. The assessee had to engage another CA later.It is submitted that the delay was deliberate nor with any malicious intention but on account of bonafide We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the contents of idavit submitted by the assessee.As per section 249(2) of the Act, any appeal before the CIT(A) is required to be filed in electronic mode within 30 days of receipt of the order and demand notice CIT(A) may admit an appeal filed after the prescribed due date if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. failed to cite any reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). appeal solely on the ground of substantial delay in filing of the appeal and did not adjudicate the issues the material available on record. Such dismissal without deciding the appeal on merits is contrary to the principles of natural justice. However, it is a fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pur with the notices and proceedings initiated by the this case is grossly lacking as the issuance of multiple notices under section 250 of the Act by the no substantive response or explanation was submitted. were adduced with regard to the delay in filing of appeal the assessee to take any initiative negligence and an indifference that is unacceptable principles of natural justice required to provide a reason taxpayer is obligated to co opportunities extended. In the present case, despite receiving adequate opportunities, the assessee displayed a casual approach and indifference, which not only delayed the appel judicial system. Such conduct cannot be condoned. unwillingness to pursue the matter actively not only disrupts the judicial ITA No. 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 appeal before the ld.CIT(A).It is also a fact that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the the ground of substantial delay in filing of the appeal and did adjudicate the issues raised in the grounds of appeal and did not examine the material available on record. Such dismissal without deciding the appeal on merits is contrary to the principles of natural justice. However, it is a fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pursue the appeal and comply with the notices and proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities is grossly lacking as evident from the attitude of the assessee the issuance of multiple notices under section 250 of the Act by the no substantive response or explanation was submitted. No plausible reasons were adduced with regard to the delay in filing of appeal as well the assessee to take any initiative in pursuing the appeals difference that is unacceptable. Needless to state principles of natural justice apply both to the Revenue authorities required to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and also taxpayer is obligated to co-operate with the authorities and utilize the opportunities extended. In the present case, despite receiving adequate opportunities, the assessee displayed a casual approach and indifference, which not only delayed the appellate proceedings but also burdened the h conduct cannot be condoned.The inability or unwillingness to pursue the matter actively not only disrupts the judicial P a g e | 5 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Prashant Pawar CIT(A) dismissed the the ground of substantial delay in filing of the appeal and did raised in the grounds of appeal and did not examine the material available on record. Such dismissal without deciding the appeal on merits is contrary to the principles of natural justice. However, it is a sue the appeal and comply evenue authorities which in evident from the attitude of the assessee. Despite the issuance of multiple notices under section 250 of the Act by the ld.CIT(A), No plausible reasons as well.The failure of in pursuing the appeals reflects gross Needless to state, the evenue authorities who are able opportunity of being heard and also the operate with the authorities and utilize the opportunities extended. In the present case, despite receiving adequate opportunities, the assessee displayed a casual approach and indifference, late proceedings but also burdened the The inability or unwillingness to pursue the matter actively not only disrupts the judicial process but also undermines the efficient functioning of the appellate mechanism. In view of such observations attitude of the assessee calls for levy of cost on it necessary deterrent to ensure that taxpayers act with due diligence in pursuing their appeals and respecting th law. It also emphasizes the principle that while justice must be ensured, the system cannot cater to indolence or negligence on the part of the assessee. 6. In view of the above, we set aside the ex ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment order u/s 144 of decide the matter on merits after providing heard to the assessee who shall duly co and make necessary compliances as required by proceedings. 6.1 Considering the assessee’s failure to and inordinate delay in filing of appeal pursuing the appeal, we impose a cost of Rs.11,000/ shall be deposited to the credit of the Income Tax Department within 15 of the receipt of this order, and proof of payment shall be submitted before the ld.AO. ITA No. 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 process but also undermines the efficient functioning of the appellate view of such observations, we find that the non cooperative attitude of the assessee calls for levy of cost on it. The cost serves as a necessary deterrent to ensure that taxpayers act with due diligence in pursuing their appeals and respecting the timelines and processes laid down under the law. It also emphasizes the principle that while justice must be ensured, the system cannot cater to indolence or negligence on the part of the assessee. In view of the above, we set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the ld.AO who also passed ex parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, for de novo adjudication. He on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity heard to the assessee who shall duly co-operate in the assessment proceedings ary compliances as required by in the assessment Considering the assessee’s failure to make necessary inordinate delay in filing of appeal reflecting complete lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal, we impose a cost of Rs.11,000/- on the assessee. The cost shall be deposited to the credit of the Income Tax Department within 15 e receipt of this order, and proof of payment shall be submitted before the P a g e | 6 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Prashant Pawar process but also undermines the efficient functioning of the appellate non cooperative . The cost serves as a necessary deterrent to ensure that taxpayers act with due diligence in pursuing e timelines and processes laid down under the law. It also emphasizes the principle that while justice must be ensured, the system cannot cater to indolence or negligence on the part of the assessee. parte order of the issue to the ld.AO who also passed ex parte He is directed to a reasonable opportunity of being operate in the assessment proceedings in the assessment make necessary compliance lack of diligence in on the assessee. The cost shall be deposited to the credit of the Income Tax Department within 15 days e receipt of this order, and proof of payment shall be submitted before the 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is purposes, subject to the levy of costs as specified above. ITA No. 6518/Mum/2024 8. The assessee with regard to contented that the ld.CIT(A) did not allow adequate opportunity of hearing and dismissed the appeal on Assessing officer erred in levying 100% penalty of Rs. 18,23,100 sought to have evaded opportunity of hearing may be provided and application for condonation of delay rejected by the ld. CIT(A) may be allowed passed order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in ex parte manner on account of repeated non compliance by the assessee during penalty proceedings.The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay of 291 days in filing of the appeal which remained to be explained by the assessee before him. 9. We have already set aside the quantum appeal in No.6517/MUM/2024 assessment, the present appeal has become infructuous order no longer exists,there is no question of any penalty existing as well. Thus,the appeal is therefore, ITA No. 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical , subject to the levy of costs as specified above. ITA No. 6518/Mum/2024(Penalty appeal) The assessee with regard to dismissal of its penalty appeal has contented that the ld.CIT(A) did not allow adequate opportunity of hearing and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 280 days. red in levying 100% penalty of Rs. 18,23,100 as per order u/s 144 r.w.s 147. It is pleaded that opportunity of hearing may be provided and application for condonation of y the ld. CIT(A) may be allowed. It is noticed that the AO passed order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in ex parte manner on account of repeated non compliance by the assessee during penalty proceedings.The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay of 291 days in filing of the appeal which remained to be explained by the assessee before him. e have already set aside the quantum appeal in 24(supra), restoring the issue to the AO for de novo assessment, the present appeal has become infructuous.Since the assessment order no longer exists,there is no question of any penalty existing as well. is therefore, dismissed. P a g e | 7 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Prashant Pawar allowed for statistical dismissal of its penalty appeal has contented that the ld.CIT(A) did not allow adequate opportunity of hearing ground of delay of 280 days. Besides, the red in levying 100% penalty of Rs. 18,23,100/- on the tax It is pleaded that opportunity of hearing may be provided and application for condonation of is noticed that the AO passed order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in ex parte manner on account of repeated non compliance by the assessee during penalty proceedings.The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay of 291 days in filing of the appeal which remained to be explained by the assessee before him. e have already set aside the quantum appeal in ITA restoring the issue to the AO for de novo .Since the assessment order no longer exists,there is no question of any penalty existing as well. Order pronounced in the open court on 10 Sd/- NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (\u000eया\tयक सद\u0013य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai \bदनांक /Date 10.02.2025 अ\fनक ेत \u0010संह राजपूत/\u0017टेनो आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \t थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0010 / CIT 4. िवभागीय \tितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण Mumbai 5. गाड\u001a फाईल / Guard file. ITA No. 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 ed in the open court on 10.02 .2025. Sd/ NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY PRABHASH SHANKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सद\u0013य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : / The Appellant The Respondent. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT, स ािपत \tित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. P a g e | 8 6517& 6518/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Prashant Pawar Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) / ITAT, Bench, "