MR RAJESHKUMAR MOTILAL JESHWAL,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 2(3), THANE

ITA 6693/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Rajesh Kumar Motilal Jeshwal against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Center/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was related to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was dismissed due to a significant delay in filing, which the Assessee attributed to the assessment order being served to an old address. The Commissioner rejected this explanation, leading to the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal based on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the condonation of delay. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay and upheld the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633208 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Ajay Dabra Vs Pyare Ram & Ors in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15793 of 2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVAN LIMBASIYA; LD.

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6693/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajesh kumar Motilal Jeshwal B/1003, Lumina Co. Op. Hsg. Soc., Arkade Art, Vinay Nagar, Mira Road (E),Thane. Mumbai 401107 PAN: AACPJ5250H Vs. ITO, Wd.2(3), Thane Ashar I.T.Park, 6th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing : 10.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12. ITA No.6693/M/2024 Rajeshkumar Motilal Jeshwal 2 2. Despite of sending notice for the date of hearing for today, the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application and therefore this Court is constrained to decide this appeal as ex-parte. 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 280 days in filing of first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, on which the Assessee had claimed that Assessment order was served on the Assessee, at his old address. 4. The ld. commissioner rejected the said explanation by holding that with regard to the delay the Assessee contended that assessment order was served on old address, however he himself has admitted that he has failed to update latest/current address in the PAN card and did not intimate the change of address to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Ld. commissioner refused to condone the delay by relying on judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Dabra Vs Pyare Ram & Ors in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15793 of 2019, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in (2013) 14 SCC 81 regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory ITA No.6693/M/2024 Rajeshkumar Motilal Jeshwal 3 provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” 5. As the Assessee himself has admitted that he has not updated the latest address/current address in the PAN card and also not intimated change of address to the Assessing Officer and therefore this Court is of the considered view that the Ld. Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. Even otherwise, there is no material/ reason for contradicting the findings of the Ld. Commissioner in dismissing the appeal of the Assessee in limine. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves dismissal and hence the same is dismissed, however with liberty to the Assessee to seek revoking of this order by substantiating the reasons for non- appearance. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms and with the liberty granted. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.06.2025. Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Disha Raut, Stenographer Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. "