PINESH ARVINDKUMAR JAIN HUF,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4980/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pinesh Arvindkumar Jain HUF, who appealed against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC. The appeal was initially delayed by 189 days due to the assessee's unfamiliarity with the income tax portal and proceedings, as this was the first year his case was selected for scrutiny. The ITAT, referencing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., prioritized substantial justice over technicalities and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT did not delve into the merits of the case but restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for the assessee to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782931 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVIKANT PATHAK
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4980/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pinesh Arvindkumar Jain HUF 706, Sumer Tower No.1, Love Late, Mumbai – 400010 Vs. ITO, Ward – 20(2)(1) Piramal Chambers Mumbai – 400013. PAN/GIR No. AALHP8561N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue by Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR (Virtually Present) Date of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 05.11.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 189 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.4980/Mum/2025 Pinesh Arvindkumar Jain HUF, Mumbai. application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: 1. Above appeal has been filed by the assessee before Hon'ble ITAT against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC. The appeal filed before Hon'ble ITAT is delayed by 189 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit along-with Form 36 explaining the reasons for delay. 2. The assessee before Your Honour is a HUF. It regularly files return of income; however, this is first year in which its case has been selected for scrutiny and assessment order has been passed on 11/05/2023 assessing the income at Rs. 85,33,209/-. 3. The assessee filed appeal against said assessment order before CIT(A). 4. As prayed before Your Honours, the Karta of HUF is not familiar to the income tax portal and income tax proceedings. In the first week of July, 2025, he got physical notice asking him to explain as to why penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act shall not be levied. The said notice has been sent by the assessee to his CA namely M/s. R.T. Jain & Co. That time, on verification of portal, the CA got to know that an order is already passed by the CIT(A), NFAC on 5/11/2014. On making enquiry with CA in first week of August, 2025, the assessee got to know that appeal is still not filed before Hon'ble ITAT. Consequently, the assessee approached another CA and got the appeal filed on 08/08/2025. With the above facts on record, the assessee prays that his case in the interest of natural justice may be sent back to assessing officer to decide the issue on merits. 3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.4980/Mum/2025 Pinesh Arvindkumar Jain HUF, Mumbai. 4. 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& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC),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 principals of advancing substantial justice is 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 before the Tribunal and admitted the appeal. 5. We also noticed that assessee was ex-parte before AO and Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench the reasons which prevented the assessee to represent properly before the AO and 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 cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before AO. The Bench is of the view that Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.4980/Mum/2025 Pinesh Arvindkumar Jain HUF, Mumbai. one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before the AO. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed upon the assessee which 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 unnecessary ground and shall remain co-operative during the course of proceedings. 7. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the AO 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 30.10.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.4980/Mum/2025 Pinesh Arvindkumar Jain HUF, Mumbai. Mumbai, Dated 30/10/2025 KRK, PS 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 Printed from counselvise.com "