NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7338/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh, the appellant, contesting the decisions made by the Income Tax Officer and the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding quantum assessment and penalty for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary legal contention revolved around the non-condonation of delay in filing the quantum appeal, despite the delay being condoned in the interconnected penalty proceedings. The appellant argued that the delay was due to bona fide reasons, including the late receipt of the assessment order and the lack of regular monitoring of the Income Tax Portal, which led to the oversight of crucial notices and communications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840357 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs, Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh, Shiv Dass v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., Ornate Traders Private Limited v. The income Tax Officer, Mumbai, University of Delhi Vs Union of India & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAY JAIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; TDS
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh, 240/E, 70, Bori Chawl, Dr. B A Rd., Adam Mistry Lane, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Income-tax Officer 42(2)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. BHSPS 0214 G Appellant Respondent SA No. 164 & 163/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh, 240/E, 70, Bori Chawl, Dr. B A Rd., Adam Mistry Lane, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Income-tax Officer 42(2)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. BHSPS 0214 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Akshay Jain Revenue by : Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 23/02/2026 Printed from counselvise.com PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Centre, Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015 relating to quantum assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings respectively. 2. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal quantum assessment proceedings appeal as non-maintainable. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings “5.1. Condonation of delay: The appellant has mentioned in the statement of facts that he came to know the assessment order and receipt of the proposal dated 17.08.2025 to adjust refund u/s 245 determined for A.Y. 2024 the form 35, the date of service of order / notice of demand as 17.08.2024, however, he has no documents to verify the genuineness of the claim. Whereas, various notices have been issued through email and also issued centralized communication through speed post No.: JA50086034IN, hence, the reason for the delayed filing of acceptable. The delay of around 176 days as it appears to be only due to the lax approach of the appellant. The reason for delay in filing appeal appellant assessee has neither accepted nor forwarded the reason for the delayed appeal which is not acceptable in absence of any cogent evidence. It is nothing else but camouflage for the gross Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015 o quantum assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings respectively. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal quantum assessment proceedings and accordingly maintainable. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings is reproduced as under: 5.1. Condonation of delay: The appellant has mentioned in the statement of facts that he came to know the assessment order and the penalty orders only after receipt of the proposal dated 17.08.2025 to adjust refund u/s 245 determined for A.Y. 2024- 25. The appellant has also mentioned in the form 35, the date of service of order / notice of demand as 17.08.2024, however, he has not attached any supporting documents to verify the genuineness of the claim. Whereas, various notices have been issued through email and also issued centralized communication through speed post No.: JA50086034IN, hence, the reason for the delayed filing of appeal of around 176 days is not The delay of around 176 days as it appears to be only due to the lax approach of the appellant. The reason for delay in filing appeal appellant assessee has neither accepted nor forwarded the reason yed appeal which is not acceptable in absence of any cogent evidence. It is nothing else but camouflage for the gross Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh 2 ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 SA No. 164 & 163/Mum/2025 These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, o quantum assessment proceedings and penalty Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal in against and accordingly dismissed the maintainable. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) The appellant has mentioned in the statement of facts that he came the penalty orders only after receipt of the proposal dated 17.08.2025 to adjust refund u/s 245 25. The appellant has also mentioned in the form 35, the date of service of order / notice of demand as t attached any supporting documents to verify the genuineness of the claim. Whereas, various notices have been issued through email and also issued centralized communication through speed post No.: JA50086034IN, hence, the appeal of around 176 days is not The delay of around 176 days as it appears to be only due to the lax approach of the appellant. The reason for delay in filing appeal appellant assessee has neither accepted nor forwarded the reason yed appeal which is not acceptable in absence of any cogent evidence. It is nothing else but camouflage for the gross Printed from counselvise.com negligence and inaction of the appellant assessee has not accepted the delay and had not given any documentary evidence in support of the delay during the ongoing appellate proceedings. The appellant assessee has miserably failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence for non Section 249 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, mentions as under: The appeal shall be pre date, that is to say (a) Where the appeal is under section 248, the date of payment of the tax, or (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating t penalty: Further, section 249(3) reads as under The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. When an appeal is filed beyond the statutory time limit, the Appellant needs to provi de a valid reason or demonstrate exceptional circumstances for the delay. It is the duty of the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time provided under the Act unless the assessee is prevented by a reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time. 5.2 The appellant ought to have filed the appeal within the prescribed time limit of 30 days from date of service as per section 249(2) of the Act and any delay the subject to the satisfaction that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period, as evident from the plain language of section 249 extracted as under: \"249(2) the appeal shall be presented within thirt following date, that is to say, (a) Where the appeal is under section 248, the date of payment of the tax, or (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty: Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 negligence and inaction of the appellant assessee has not accepted the delay and had not given any documentary evidence in support delay during the ongoing appellate proceedings. The appellant assessee has miserably failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence for non-filing the appeal within due time. Section 249 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, mentions as under: The appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date, that is to say- (a) Where the appeal is under section 248, the date of payment of (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or Further, section 249(3) reads as under: The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. When an appeal is filed beyond the statutory time limit, the Appellant needs to provi de a valid reason or demonstrate exceptional circumstances for the delay. It is the duty of the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time provided Act unless the assessee is prevented by a reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time. 5.2 The appellant ought to have filed the appeal within the prescribed time limit of 30 days from date of service as per section 249(2) of the Act and any delay therein may be condoned only subject to the satisfaction that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period, as evident from the plain language of section 249 extracted as under: \"249(2) the appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date, that is to say, (a) Where the appeal is under section 248, the date of payment of (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh 3 ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 SA No. 164 & 163/Mum/2025 negligence and inaction of the appellant assessee has not accepted the delay and had not given any documentary evidence in support delay during the ongoing appellate proceedings. The appellant assessee has miserably failed to demonstrate sufficient Section 249 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, mentions as under: sented within thirty days of the following (a) Where the appeal is under section 248, the date of payment of (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date o the assessment or The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. When an appeal is filed beyond the statutory time limit, the Appellant needs to provi de a valid reason or demonstrate exceptional circumstances for the delay. It is the duty of the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time provided Act unless the assessee is prevented by a reasonable 5.2 The appellant ought to have filed the appeal within the prescribed time limit of 30 days from date of service as per section rein may be condoned only subject to the satisfaction that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period, as evident from the plain y days of the (a) Where the appeal is under section 248, the date of payment of (b) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or Printed from counselvise.com Provided that, where an application has been made under section 146 for reopening an assessment, the period from the date on which the application is made to the date on which the order passed on the application is served on the assessee shall be Provided further that where an application has been made under sub- section (1) of section 270AA, the period beginning from the date on which the application is made, to the date on which the order rejecting the application is served on the asse excluded, or (1). In any other case, the date on which intimation of the order sought to be appealed against is served. 1. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub order has been made under section 201 on or after the October, 1998 but before the 1st day of June, 2000 and the assessee in default has not presented any appeal within the time specified in that sub 1st day of July, presen 2000. 1. The Commissioner (A expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.\" 5.3 It is pertinent to note that the delay may be condoned, and the appeal may b successfully demonstrate that it had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of 30 days. The exercise of discretion in condonation of delay in matters of limitation, such as in the present case u/s 249(3) of the Income tax act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of \"sufficient cause\" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation act. Hence the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under sect there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay. In the present set of appeals the appellant assessee has miserably failed to demonstrate that sufficient cause existed for non filing the appeal within due time. The onus the appellant/application as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of law. In the case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, perinadu village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs, (2008) 8 SCC 321, it was observ by the Hon'ble Court that \"13... the words \"sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation* should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 Provided that, where an application has been made under section 146 for reopening an assessment, the period from the date on which the application is made to the date on which the order passed on the application is served on the assessee shall be Provided further that where an application has been made under section (1) of section 270AA, the period beginning from the date on which the application is made, to the date on which the order rejecting the application is served on the assessee, shall be (1). In any other case, the date on which intimation of the order sought to be appealed against is served. 1. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where an order has been made under section 201 on or after the October, 1998 but before the 1st day of June, 2000 and the assessee in default has not presented any appeal within the time specified in that sub-section, he may present such appeal before the 1st day of July, presen 2000. 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.\" 5.3 It is pertinent to note that the delay may be condoned, and the appeal may be admitted u/s 249(3) only if the appellant could successfully demonstrate that it had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of 30 days. The exercise of discretion in condonation of delay in matters of limitation, such as present case u/s 249(3) of the Income tax act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of \"sufficient cause\" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation act. Hence the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under sect there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay. In the present set of appeals the appellant assessee has miserably failed to demonstrate that sufficient cause existed for non filing the appeal within due time. The onus of proving which lies on the appellant/application as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of law. In the case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, perinadu village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs, (2008) 8 SCC 321, it was observ by the Hon'ble Court that \"13... the words \"sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation* should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh 4 ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 SA No. 164 & 163/Mum/2025 Provided that, where an application has been made under section 146 for reopening an assessment, the period from the date on which the application is made to the date on which the order passed on the application is served on the assessee shall be excluded: Provided further that where an application has been made under section (1) of section 270AA, the period beginning from the date on which the application is made, to the date on which the order ssee, shall be (1). In any other case, the date on which intimation of the order section (2), where an order has been made under section 201 on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 but before the 1st day of June, 2000 and the assessee in default has not presented any appeal within the time section, he may present such appeal before the ppeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.\" 5.3 It is pertinent to note that the delay may be condoned, and the e admitted u/s 249(3) only if the appellant could successfully demonstrate that it had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of 30 days. The exercise of discretion in condonation of delay in matters of limitation, such as present case u/s 249(3) of the Income tax act, 1961 has to be carried out within the meaning of \"sufficient cause\" as envisaged in Section 5 of Limitation act. Hence the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay. In the present set of appeals the appellant assessee has miserably failed to demonstrate that sufficient cause existed for non of proving which lies on the appellant/application as clearly laid down in the judicial In the case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, perinadu village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs, (2008) 8 SCC 321, it was observed \"13... the words \"sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation* should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending Printed from counselvise.com upon the facts and circumst The words \"sufficient cause\" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fide the appellant.\" (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid view was reiterated in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, where in the Court held that: \"25. We may state that even if t receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concemed. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of \"r connotation. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favor of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take aw that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party h negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.\" The Courts in the abovementioned cases, high importance introducing the concept of \"reasonableness\" while giving the clause \"sufficient cause\" a liberal interpretation. In furtherance of the same, the Courts has cautioned regarding the necessity of distinguishing cases where delay is cases where the delay is inordinate as it might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. In such cases, where there exists inordinate delay and the same is attributable to the party's inaction and negligence, t so as to protect the substantial rights of the parties. The Division bench of the Hon'ble Bombay HC in Ornate Traders Private Limited v. The income Tax Officer, Mumbai emphasized the need for reasonableness and hen condoned by the court should fall within the scope of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. The Hon'ble Bombay HC Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words \"sufficient cause\" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant.\" (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid view was reiterated in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, where in the Court held \"25. We may state that even if the term \"sufficient cause\" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concemed. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of \"reasonableness as it is understood in its general connotation. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately g on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favor of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take aw that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.\" The Courts in the abovementioned cases, highlighted upon the importance introducing the concept of \"reasonableness\" while giving the clause \"sufficient cause\" a liberal interpretation. In furtherance of the same, the Courts has cautioned regarding the necessity of distinguishing cases where delay is of few days, as against the cases where the delay is inordinate as it might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. In such cases, where there exists inordinate delay and the same is attributable to the party's inaction and negligence, the Courts have to take a strict approach so as to protect the substantial rights of the parties. The Division bench of the Hon'ble Bombay HC in Ornate Traders Private Limited v. The income Tax Officer, Mumbai emphasized the need for reasonableness and hence, the actions which can be condoned by the court should fall within the scope of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. The Hon'ble Bombay HC Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh 5 ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 SA No. 164 & 163/Mum/2025 ances of the case, and the type of case. The words \"sufficient cause\" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, s, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of The aforesaid view was reiterated in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, where in the Court held he term \"sufficient cause\" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concemed. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce easonableness as it is understood in its general connotation. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately g on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favor of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the as been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued lighted upon the importance introducing the concept of \"reasonableness\" while giving the clause \"sufficient cause\" a liberal interpretation. In furtherance of the same, the Courts has cautioned regarding the necessity of of few days, as against the cases where the delay is inordinate as it might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. In such cases, where there exists inordinate delay and the same is attributable to the party's he Courts have to take a strict approach The Division bench of the Hon'ble Bombay HC in Ornate Traders Private Limited v. The income Tax Officer, Mumbai emphasized the ce, the actions which can be condoned by the court should fall within the scope of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. The Hon'ble Bombay HC Printed from counselvise.com further observed that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act is being interpreted liberally, it ca justification, since condonation of delay in a mechanical or routine manner will jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5. The Hon'ble SC in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330 held that the High Courts, while exercising their discretionary powers under Article 226, should consider delay or laches and, refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if it is found that the applicant had neglected/omitted to assert its right in a timely manner; however, this discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably. 5.4 From the above decisions, it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay where the appeal was filed beyond the limitation of period, the courts/aut condone the delay, provided that the Appellant can prove his claim of inability to file appeal within the prescribed period. Litigant must be able to demonstrate that there was \"sufficient cause\" which obstructed his action to fil The law of limitation is found upon the maxims Interest ReipublicaeUt Sit FinisLitium\" that litigation must come to an end in the interest of society as a whole and \"vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura subveniunt\" vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant. 5.5 COM The delay should not be condoned simply be because the appellant's case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant 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 Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. Where no negligence, nor inaction, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the appellant a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. [JCIT Vs Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai) 104 ITD 149 followed]. Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 further observed that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act is being interpreted liberally, it cannot be so liberally that it is without any justification, since condonation of delay in a mechanical or routine manner will jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5. The Hon'ble SC in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India (UOI) and 007 SC 1330 held that the High Courts, while exercising their discretionary powers under Article 226, should consider delay or laches and, refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if it is found that the applicant had neglected/omitted to assert its right in a timely manner; however, this discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably. 5.4 From the above decisions, it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay where the appeal was filed beyond the limitation of period, the courts/authorities are empowered to condone the delay, provided that the Appellant can prove his claim of inability to file appeal within the prescribed period. Litigant must be able to demonstrate that there was \"sufficient cause\" which obstructed his action to file Appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. The law of limitation is found upon the maxims Interest ReipublicaeUt Sit FinisLitium\" that litigation must come to an end in the interest of society as a whole and \"vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura subveniunt\" that the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant. COM The delay should not be condoned simply be because the appellant's case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay it must be proved beyond the shadow of oubt that the appellant 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. 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning tation provision. Where no negligence, nor inaction, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the appellant a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. Vs Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai) 104 ITD 149 followed]. Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh 6 ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 SA No. 164 & 163/Mum/2025 further observed that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act is being nnot be so liberally that it is without any justification, since condonation of delay in a mechanical or routine manner will jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5. The Hon'ble SC in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India (UOI) and 007 SC 1330 held that the High Courts, while exercising their discretionary powers under Article 226, should consider delay or laches and, refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if it is found that the applicant had neglected/omitted to assert its rights in a timely manner; however, this discretion has to be exercised 5.4 From the above decisions, it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay where the appeal was filed beyond the horities are empowered to condone the delay, provided that the Appellant can prove his claim of inability to file appeal within the prescribed period. Litigant must be able to demonstrate that there was \"sufficient cause\" which e Appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. The law of limitation is found upon the maxims Interest ReipublicaeUt Sit FinisLitium\" that litigation must come to an end in the interest of society as a whole and \"vigilantibus non that the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant. COM The delay should not be condoned simply be because the appellant's case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay it must be proved beyond the shadow of oubt that the appellant 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. 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning tation provision. Where no negligence, nor inaction, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the appellant a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. Vs Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai) 104 ITD Printed from counselvise.com 5.6 Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for a delay of around 176 days Such a delay cannot be condoned as condonation in the present case would not be in accordance with emanating out of the Hon'ble apex Court and Hon'ble High Court decisions. It will rather be grave prejudice to the Department. As already expressed by the apex Court in the case cited supra that the State is also a litigant and need not be treatment. In this context, the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 178 CTR (P& H) 274 is relevant, which reads as under: The provisions relating to prescription of limitatio must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. Now, it is a settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their ri effective Since the appellant has failed to show any \"sufficient cause\" u/s. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s.249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. The abnormal delays cannot be condoned. 5.7 In a recent judgment in the case of University of Delhi Vs Union of India & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 9408 of 2019 vide order dated 17/12/2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to condon delay by holding that, \"The entire explanation as noted above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law. That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, lache also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party has proceeded before filing an appeal. In the matter of condonation of delay and laches, the well accepted position is also that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be therefore, hold that the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed time limit of section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. 6. In the light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay in filing of appeal and had not given any substantive evidence for the late filing of appeal. The appellant assessee has not been able to demonstrate that sufficient cause existed for non Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 5.6 Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for a delay of around 176 days Such a delay cannot be condoned as condonation in the present case would not be in accordance with emanating out of the Hon'ble apex Court and Hon'ble High Court decisions. It will rather be grave prejudice to the Department. As already expressed by the apex Court in the case cited supra that the State is also a litigant and need not be given a step treatment. In this context, the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 178 CTR (P& H) 274 is relevant, which reads as under: The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, then such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. Now, it is a settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their ri effective Since the appellant has failed to show any \"sufficient cause\" u/s. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s.249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of Limitation Act. The abnormal delays cannot be condoned. 5.7 In a recent judgment in the case of University of Delhi Vs Union of India & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 9408 of 2019 vide order dated 17/12/2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to condon delay by holding that, \"The entire explanation as noted above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law. That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, lache also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party has proceeded before filing an appeal. In the matter of condonation of delay and laches, the well accepted position is also that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with.\" I, therefore, hold that the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed time limit of section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. he light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay in filing of appeal and had not given any substantive evidence for the late filing of appeal. The appellant assessee has not been able to demonstrate that sufficient cause existed for non-fili Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh 7 ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 SA No. 164 & 163/Mum/2025 5.6 Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for a delay of around 176 days Such a delay cannot be condoned as condonation the exposition emanating out of the Hon'ble apex Court and Hon'ble High Court decisions. It will rather be grave prejudice to the Department. As already expressed by the apex Court in the case cited supra that given a step-motherly treatment. In this context, the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 178 CTR (P& H) 274 is relevant, which reads as under: n in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the legislature spells out a period of limitation and delay as well, then such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by Now, it is a settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective Since the appellant has failed to show any \"sufficient cause\" u/s. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation 5 of Limitation Act. 5.7 In a recent judgment in the case of University of Delhi Vs Union of India & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 9408 of 2019 vide order dated 17/12/2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to condone delay by holding that, \"The entire explanation as noted above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law. That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, laches would also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party has proceeded before filing an appeal. In the matter of condonation of delay and laches, the well accepted position is also that the lightly dealt with.\" I, therefore, hold that the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed time limit of section 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence he light of the above, the appellant has not accepted the delay in filing of appeal and had not given any substantive evidence for the late filing of appeal. The appellant assessee has not been able filing the appeal Printed from counselvise.com within due time. In fact, the appellant assessee tried to hide/mislead the fact of late filing of around 176 days. The appellant assessee has neglected/omitted to assert its rights of appeal in a timely manner. It is seen that there was no pr the mind of the appellant to file the appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as not maintainable. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The primary issue before us concerns the refusal Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the quantum appeal, despite having condoned the delay in the interconnected penalty proceedings arising from the same set of facts. The assessee has filed an affidavit before us, the relevant portions of whi extracted below: “2. I say that during the Financial Year 2014 Assessment Year 2015 salaried employee. TDS was deducted from salary. No return of income was filed for Assessment Year 2015 3. I say that I received on 17.08.2024 a proposal dated 17.08.2024 to adjust refund u/s. 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 determined for AY 2024 Assessment Order and the Penalty Order for AY 2015 4. I say that thereafter, namely M/s Laddha & Laddha, Chartered Accountants, Mumbai and handed over the letter issued u/s. 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.08.2024. Thereafter, the tax consultant informed the appellant that the assessmen notices and order passed u/s. 148A(d) & also notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are passed. 5. I say that, I am not regular to assessment proceedings therefore I don't check the Income Tax Portal. Hence, I was not various notices/communications, order passed u/s. 148A(d), notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and even that the Assessment Order was passed ex Income Tax Act, 1961. Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 within due time. In fact, the appellant assessee tried to hide/mislead the fact of late filing of around 176 days. The appellant assessee has neglected/omitted to assert its rights of appeal in a timely manner. It is seen that there was no pr the mind of the appellant to file the appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as not maintainable.” We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The primary issue before us concerns the refusal Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the quantum appeal, despite having condoned the delay in the interconnected penalty proceedings arising from the same set of facts. The assessee has filed an affidavit before us, the relevant portions of whi 2. I say that during the Financial Year 2014-15 relevant to Assessment Year 2015-16, I was working in India and was a salaried employee. TDS was deducted from salary. No return of income was filed for Assessment Year 2015-16. say that I received on 17.08.2024 a proposal dated 17.08.2024 to adjust refund u/s. 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 determined for AY 2024-25 against the demand raised in the Assessment Order and the Penalty Order for AY 2015- 4. I say that thereafter, I approached one tax consultant firm namely M/s Laddha & Laddha, Chartered Accountants, Mumbai and handed over the letter issued u/s. 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.08.2024. Thereafter, the tax consultant informed the appellant that the assessment order, penalty orders, various notices and order passed u/s. 148A(d) & also notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are passed. 5. I say that, I am not regular to assessment proceedings therefore I don't check the Income Tax Portal. Hence, I was not aware of the various notices/communications, order passed u/s. 148A(d), notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and even that the Assessment Order was passed ex-parte u/s. 144 of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh 8 ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 SA No. 164 & 163/Mum/2025 within due time. In fact, the appellant assessee tried to hide/mislead the fact of late filing of around 176 days. The appellant assessee has neglected/omitted to assert its rights of appeal in a timely manner. It is seen that there was no priority in the mind of the appellant to file the appeal. Hence, the appeal filed We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The primary issue before us concerns the refusal of the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the quantum appeal, despite having condoned the delay in the interconnected penalty proceedings arising from the same set of facts. The assessee has filed an affidavit before us, the relevant portions of which are 15 relevant to 16, I was working in India and was a salaried employee. TDS was deducted from salary. No return of say that I received on 17.08.2024 a proposal dated 17.08.2024 to adjust refund u/s. 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 25 against the demand raised in the -16. I approached one tax consultant firm namely M/s Laddha & Laddha, Chartered Accountants, Mumbai and handed over the letter issued u/s. 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.08.2024. Thereafter, the tax consultant informed t order, penalty orders, various notices and order passed u/s. 148A(d) & also notice u/s. 148 of 5. I say that, I am not regular to assessment proceedings therefore aware of the various notices/communications, order passed u/s. 148A(d), notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and even that the parte u/s. 144 of the of the Printed from counselvise.com 6. I say that only when I received mess adjustment of my refund, I approached tax consultant for the refund matter and he informed me about the assessment proceedings. 7. I say that, I was not having any regular tax consultant and all the notices/orders/communications were com which went in the spam folder and went inadvertently went unnoticed. 8. I say that, since the facts and circumstances of quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal are same & identical as far as delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT (A) penalty appeal Ld. CIT (A) suo moto condoned the delay in filing of appeal but in the quantum appeal he did not condoned the delay in filing of appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given same treatment in both appeals on same not grant opportunity to explain the delay considered by him & straight away dismissed the appeal. 9. I say that since I am working abroad from the year 2023 the notice which was sent by speed post was also not received by 10. I say that, due to the aforementioned circumstances, I received the Assessment Order dated 30.01.2024 on 17.08.2024 and the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was filed within 10 days of the receipt i.e., on 27.08.2024 11. I say that, the failure to file th time was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control. 4. A perusal of the affidavit reveals a sequence of bona fide circumstances. The assessee, being a s deducted at source, was under the impression that no further compliance was necessitated. It was only upon receiving a proposal for adjustment of refund under 17.08.2024, pertaining to AY 2024 2015-16, that the assessee became aware of the ex assessment and penalty orders. Furthermore, the assessee’s Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 6. I say that only when I received message of proposal of adjustment of my refund, I approached tax consultant for the refund matter and he informed me about the assessment 7. I say that, I was not having any regular tax consultant and all the notices/orders/communications were communicated on mail which went in the spam folder and went inadvertently went 8. I say that, since the facts and circumstances of quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal are same & identical as far as delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT (A) are concerned. However, In the penalty appeal Ld. CIT (A) suo moto condoned the delay in filing of appeal but in the quantum appeal he did not condoned the delay in filing of appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given same treatment in both appeals on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) did not grant opportunity to explain the delay considered by him & straight away dismissed the appeal. 9. I say that since I am working abroad from the year 2023 the notice which was sent by speed post was also not received by 10. I say that, due to the aforementioned circumstances, I received the Assessment Order dated 30.01.2024 on 17.08.2024 and the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was filed within 10 days of the receipt i.e., on 27.08.2024 11. I say that, the failure to file the appeal within the prescribed time was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control. A perusal of the affidavit reveals a sequence of bona fide circumstances. The assessee, being a salaried employee with taxes deducted at source, was under the impression that no further compliance was necessitated. It was only upon receiving a proposal for adjustment of refund under Section 245 of the Act on pertaining to AY 2024-25 against demands for AY that the assessee became aware of the ex assessment and penalty orders. Furthermore, the assessee’s Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh 9 ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 SA No. 164 & 163/Mum/2025 age of proposal of adjustment of my refund, I approached tax consultant for the refund matter and he informed me about the assessment 7. I say that, I was not having any regular tax consultant and all municated on mail which went in the spam folder and went inadvertently went 8. I say that, since the facts and circumstances of quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal are same & identical as far as delay in are concerned. However, In the penalty appeal Ld. CIT (A) suo moto condoned the delay in filing of appeal but in the quantum appeal he did not condoned the delay in filing of appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) did not grant opportunity to explain the delay considered by him & 9. I say that since I am working abroad from the year 2023 the notice which was sent by speed post was also not received by me. 10. I say that, due to the aforementioned circumstances, I received the Assessment Order dated 30.01.2024 on 17.08.2024 and the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was filed within 10 days of the receipt e appeal within the prescribed time was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control.” A perusal of the affidavit reveals a sequence of bona fide alaried employee with taxes deducted at source, was under the impression that no further compliance was necessitated. It was only upon receiving a proposal of the Act on t demands for AY that the assessee became aware of the ex-parte assessment and penalty orders. Furthermore, the assessee’s Printed from counselvise.com professional commitments abroad and the inadvertent filtration of electronic notices into 'spam' folders contributed to the knowledge regarding the proceedings. 4.1 It is a settled principle of law that the expression cause\" under the Limitation Act must receive a liberal construction to advance the cause of substantial justice. When technicalities and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the latter must prevail. We find it particularly inconsistent that the Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in the penalty appeal while dismissing the quantum appeal on the same grounds of delay. Such a bifurcated approach on identical facts lacks judicial parity. view, the explanation tendered by the assessee constitutes a \"reasonable cause.\" The delay was neither deliberate nor a result of culpable negligence. 4.2 However, the specific contents of this affidavit were not available before the ld CIT(A) we deem it appropriate CIT(A) for reconsideration of the issue of condonation of d accordance with law above. 4.3 Accordingly, we set aside th in quantum. As the respect of quantum Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 professional commitments abroad and the inadvertent filtration of electronic notices into 'spam' folders contributed to the knowledge regarding the proceedings. It is a settled principle of law that the expression under the Limitation Act must receive a liberal construction to advance the cause of substantial justice. When technicalities and antial justice are pitted against each other, the latter must prevail. We find it particularly inconsistent that the Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in the penalty appeal while dismissing the quantum appeal on the same grounds of delay. Such a bifurcated roach on identical facts lacks judicial parity. In our considered view, the explanation tendered by the assessee constitutes a \"reasonable cause.\" The delay was neither deliberate nor a result of However, the specific contents of this affidavit were not before the ld CIT(A), in the interest of substantial justice, appropriate to restore the matte back to the file of ld CIT(A) for reconsideration of the issue of condonation of d accordance with law without influenced by any of Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) penalty appeal is consequent to the appeal in respect of quantum proceedings, the order of ld CIT(A) on penalty Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh 10 ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 SA No. 164 & 163/Mum/2025 professional commitments abroad and the inadvertent filtration of electronic notices into 'spam' folders contributed to the lack of It is a settled principle of law that the expression \"sufficient under the Limitation Act must receive a liberal construction to advance the cause of substantial justice. When technicalities and antial justice are pitted against each other, the latter must prevail. We find it particularly inconsistent that the Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in the penalty appeal while dismissing the quantum appeal on the same grounds of delay. Such a bifurcated In our considered view, the explanation tendered by the assessee constitutes a \"reasonable cause.\" The delay was neither deliberate nor a result of However, the specific contents of this affidavit were not in the interest of substantial justice, back to the file of ld CIT(A) for reconsideration of the issue of condonation of delay in any of our observation of the Ld. CIT(A) to the appeal in the order of ld CIT(A) on penalty Printed from counselvise.com matter is also setaside and restored back for deciding afresh after the order passed in quantum appellate proceedings. 4.4 Since the main appeals are being restored for fresh adjudication, the Stay Petitions filed by th now for adjudication and are dismissed accordingly. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes whereas the stay petitions filed by the asses are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 23/02/2026 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 matter is also setaside and restored back for deciding afresh after the order passed in quantum appellate proceedings. Since the main appeals are being restored for fresh adjudication, the Stay Petitions filed by the assessee now for adjudication as same are rendered themselves infructuous and are dismissed accordingly. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes whereas the stay petitions filed by the asses ounced in the open Court on 23/02/2026. Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh 11 ITA Nos. 7338 & 7339/MUM/2025 SA No. 164 & 163/Mum/2025 matter is also setaside and restored back for deciding afresh after the order passed in quantum appellate proceedings. Since the main appeals are being restored for fresh e assessee do not survive as same are rendered themselves infructuous In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes whereas the stay petitions filed by the assessee /02/2026. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "