MUZAFFAR MURAD SAYYED ,MUMBAI V. ITO, 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4097/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Muzaffar Murad Sayyed, the appellant, who contested an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal due to a 12-day delay in filing. The delay was attributed to the appellant's medical emergency. The original assessment by the Income-tax Department added substantial amounts under sections 56(2)(viib) and 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2020-21, and levied tax under section 115BBE. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, solely on the basis of the delay, and thus decided to set aside the order and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24020 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNNY KACHHWAHA SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIS.C. AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144; 143(2); 250; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No. 4097/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) Muzaffar Murad Sayyed S.H. Contractor Chawl, Behind Khoja Jamat Khana, V.P. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 058 PAN : BIKPS0303P vs ITO 24(2)(1), Mumbai Piramal Chambers, 6h Floor, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : ShriS.C. Agrawal, CA Respondent by : Shri Sunny Kachhwaha - SRDR Date of hearing : 07/10/2024 Date of pronouncement : 21/10/2024 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2020-21,date of order 10.07.2024. The impugned order is emanated from the order of the Learned Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, order passed under section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 02/09/2022. 2 ITA No.4097/Mum/2024 Muzaffar Murad Sayyed 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return under section 139(1) of the Act and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and the assessment was completed by addition sunder section 56(2)(viib) of the Act amount to Rs.9,58,940/- and under section 69 amount to Rs.43lakh and the tax was levied by pursuing section 115BBE of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 12 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation for delay in filing the appeal. The assessee in appeal Form 35, filled up the relevant column-15 and it is mentioned that “The appeal is delayed due to the fact that the appellant was not well”. The ld.CIT(A), due to absence of the sufficient cause by contravening provisions of section 249(3), the appeal was dismissed without considering the merit. Being aggrieved on the appeal order, the assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The ld.AR vehemently argued and filed a written submission which is kept in the record (in short APB). It is found that the assessment order was passed on 02/09/2022 and the appeal petition was instituted on 13/10/2022. It is placed that the assessee was not well and undergoing the medical emergency. For that reason, the appeal was delayed by 12 days. The ld.CIT(A) has passed the order without considering the ground of appeal but rejected the appeal only on the point of limitation. The ld.DR argued and had not made any strong objection against the argument of the ld. AR. 3 ITA No.4097/Mum/2024 Muzaffar Murad Sayyed The ld.AR prayed for restoring the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating the matter afresh. In our considered view the reasonable opportunity was denied for the assessee for submission of his evidence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub served if the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for consideration thereof afresh. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay for 12 days and to pass a speaking order by considering the merit of the case. We are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit the appellate procedure before the ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing in set aside proceedings. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4097/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st day of October 2024. Sd/- sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,दिन ांक/Dated: 21/10/2024 Pavanan 4 ITA No.4097/Mum/2024 Muzaffar Murad Sayyed Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रदिव िी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुक्त CIT 4. दवभ गीयप्रदिदनदि, आय.अपी.अदि., मुबांई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. ग र्डफ इल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai "