NISAR AHMED KHAN ,MUMBAI V. ACIT CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

ITA 606/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nisar Ahmed Khan, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2017-18. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without addressing the merits due to the absence of submissions from the appellant. The appellant's authorized representative, a Chartered Accountant, had passed away, leading to the non-compliance. The AO had earlier made additions under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, citing unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for a fresh opportunity to present the case, considering the circumstances of the delay and the death of the appellant's representative.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46898 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIHAR RANJAN SAMAL
• Assessee Lawyers: TANZIL R. PADVEKAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 606/MUM/2025 (AY : 2017-18) (Physical hearing) Nisar Ahmed Khan 1st Floor, Room No. 23, Bootwala Chawl, Duncan Road, M.A. Road, Mumbai - 400008 PAN No. AIIPA2008C बनाम Vs ACIT, Circle – 20(2) Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 अपीलाथ /Appellant थ /Respondent िनधा\u000f\u0010रतीकीओरसे /Assessee by Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, AR राज\u0018कीओरसे /Revenue by Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of hearing 19.03.2025 उद ्घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement 08.04.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A), dated 01.08.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short Ld. CIT(A)] erred in dismissing appeal for non-prosecution without dealing in the merits of the grounds raised. 2. On the facts and in law, the Appellant could not appear before CIT(A) because of the death of Chartered Accountant, who was authorised representative of Appellant and who was responsible for handling matters. 3. On the facts and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO) erred in making addition under Section 69A of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity, the Appellant to explain cash deposited in bank account. 4. On the facts and in law, the impugned addition made under Section 69A of the Act be deleted. 5. The appellant craves, leave to add to alter, modify, revise, or delete any ground (s) in the interest of justice.” ITA No. 606/Mum/2025 Nisar Ahmed Khan 2 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused.The learned authorised representative (ld.AR) of the assessee submits thatthere is delay of 455 days in filing the appeal before Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee was not aware about passing the impugned order by ld CIT (A). The assessment was completed in December, 2019 and the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) in January, 2000. The assessee appointed Chartered Accountant (CA)) namely Naresh Dattani who to handle the matter before ld. CIT(A), died in Covid-19 pandemic on 19.09.2020, copy of death certificate is filed on record. The assessee was not aware about the outcome of order of ld CIT(A). In the month of December, 2024, the assessee approach Mudassir Deshmukh, CA, who referred the assessee to present the various representative and on checking on Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal it was revealed that appeal of assessee was already been dismissed for the want of submission. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there was no intentional or deliberate delay in filing the appeal before Tribunal, rather due to the reasons explained hereinafter above. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessment was also completed under section 144. The Assessing Officer (AO) made addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization period. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is allowed to contest the case on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the matter may be restored back to the file of AO ith the liberty to assessee to file requisite detail. He ITA No. 606/Mum/2025 Nisar Ahmed Khan 3 undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance and will not default in making timely response to the notices issued by lower authorities. 3. On the other hand, learned senior departmental representative (Sr.DR) for the Revenue submits that assessee is relying on self serving story. The assessee does not deserve in leniency. The appeal may be dismissed. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay of 455 days in filing the appeal before Tribunal. We find that ld. AR of the assessee has taken firm stand that the assessee appointed Naresh Dattani to pursue his appeal before ld. CIT(A) and that the said CA died in Covid-19 pandemic, copy of his death certificate is on record. Considering the fact that CA/AR of the assessee died which resulted in non-compliance before CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the want of submission. Considering the fact that AR/CA of the assessee died during pendency of first appeal before CIT(A), thus, we find submissions of ld AR of the assessee as convincing that the assessee was not aware about the passing of impugned order by ld CIT(A), therefore, we find a reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing appeal. Thus, delay of 455 days in filing appeal before Tribunal is condoned. Now, adverting the merits of the case. 5. We find that the ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte for the want of submission by assessee, therefore keeping in view the principle of natural justice, the matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer to ITA No. 606/Mum/2025 Nisar Ahmed Khan 4 pass the order afresh. Needless to direct before passing the order afresh, the AO shall allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee directed to more vigilant in future and not undertake adjournment without any valid reasons. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/04/2025. /- Sd/- S GIRISH AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 08/04/2025 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai "