PALLAVI SANTOSH BHAVE,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6418/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Pallavi Santosh Bhave against a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 7,35,966. The penalty was initially upheld by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appellant sought condonation for a 13-day delay in filing the appeal, which was granted based on the principles of substantial justice over technicalities, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector vs MST Kitji & Others. The ITAT, after considering the facts and the previous ITAT order which set aside quantum additions to the CIT(A), decided to restore the penalty matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714529 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Land Acquisition Collector vs MST Kitji & Others, 1987, AIR, 1353 Supreme Court
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA S. MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: RADHA HALBE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.6418/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pallavi Santosh Bhave 13 Jay Sukh Co-op Soc., Liberty Garden, Near Ashray Hotel Off Mamletdarwadi, Malad West, Mumbai 400064. PAN: ARKPB1357L Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan C41- 43, G Block BKC, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Radha Halbe Respondent by Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of final assessment order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27/09/2024 on following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 7,35,966/-. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 6418/Mum/2024 AY 2013-14 Pallavi Santosh Bhave 2. From the records, we noticed that there is a delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal regarding which assessee has moved an application for seeking condonation of Delay coupled with an affidavit. 3. Whereas on the contrary, Ld. DR contested the said application and requested to dismiss the same as there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector vs MST Kitji& Others, 1987, AIR, 1353 Supreme Court Wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view, the principles of advancing substantial justice are of prime importance. Hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay, which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression ‘Sufficient Cause’ liberally, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the application filed by the assessee for seeking condonation of the delay stands allowed. The appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 5. After having gone through the records of the present case and hearing the parties, we found that the present appeal has arisen Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 6418/Mum/2024 AY 2013-14 Pallavi Santosh Bhave out of the confirmation of penalty orders passed by the AO. However, we noticed that the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in assesses own case on quantum additions have restored the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties vide order dated 12.03.2025 in ITA No. 6351/MUM/2024. 6. Since the quantum additions have already been set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, in the fitness of the things the present file is also restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh after adjudicating, the quantum appeal on merits. Consequently, Considering the factual position in mind, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. 7. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Appeal shall, in no way be construed, as having any reflection of expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/08/2025 Sd/-d/-Sd/- SdSd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (ACCOUNTAMT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 6418/Mum/2024 AY 2013-14 Pallavi Santosh Bhave Mumbai: Dated: 04/08/2025 Divya R. Nandgaonkar Stenographer Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "