PEE JAY BUILDERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI V. DCIT, MUMBAI

ITA 1883/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Pee Jay Builders Pvt Ltd filed an appeal against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was delayed by 445 days, attributed to the director's health issues and lack of tech-savviness, which prevented timely compliance with notices. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji, prioritized substantial justice over technicalities and condoned the delay. The Tribunal noted the assessee's ex-parte status before the CIT(A) and, acknowledging the 'sufficient cause' for non-representation, decided to restore the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633517 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADHURA M. NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R. SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1883/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Pee Jay Builders Pvt Ltd 20, Rajabhadur Mansion, Ambalal Doshi Marg, Fort, Mumbai. Vs. DCIT Aakar Bhawan, Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AABCP9397F (Applicant) Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ajay R. Singh Revenue by Ms. Madhura M. Nayak Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 03.10.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. At the very outset I noticed that there is a delay of 445days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. In this regard Ld. AR has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the basis of reasons mentioned in the application that all the old staff 2 ITA No. 1883/Mum/2025 Pee Jay Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai of the assessee had left the office and the director is senior citizen, aged around 70 years and had lot of health issues and is also not tech savvy, therefore could not comply with the notices. It was submitted that because old age and not being tech savvy, the assessee had not checked the mail for a long time. However just before few days the assessee had seen the ex-parte order u/s 271AAB for the same year, therefore came to know about the ex-parte order passed u/s 250 of the Act. 3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same. 4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the 3 ITA No. 1883/Mum/2025 Pee Jay Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression \"sufficient cause\" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. At the very outset, I noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench that there was ‘sufficient cause’ which prevented the assessee to represent properly before Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 6. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Since there was non cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a cost of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed upon the assesse which 4 ITA No. 1883/Mum/2025 Pee Jay Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 7. Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or 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, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.06.2025. Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 11/06/2025 KRK, PS 5 ITA No. 1883/Mum/2025 Pee Jay Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai आदेश की \bितिलिप अ\u000eेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. \u000eथ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0019 / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु\u0019(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स\u000eािपत ित //True Copy// 1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई / ITAT, Mumbai "