RAJENDRA KAMALAKANT CHODANKAR,MUMBAI V. DCIT 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6629/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar, the appellant, who filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, which upheld an addition of Rs. 20,00,000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2020-21. The appeal was initially delayed due to miscommunication and inadequate follow-up by the appellant's former tax consultant, leading to an ex-parte decision by the CIT(A). The appellant, now represented by a new chartered accountant, sought to condone the delay and have the case heard on its merits. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25888 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAJIT NAIR
• Assessee Lawyers: DISHA J AIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Bonafide belief; Principle of natural justice; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 143(3); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 6629/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar 602, Silver Castal, Sundar Nagar, Road No. 2, Kalina, Sanatcruz East, Mumbai-400098 PAN: AAFPC2966E Vs. The National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Disha Jain Respondent by Shri. Sajit Nair, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 13.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 26/08/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2020-21. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has furnished an application in support of the delay 2 ITA No.6629/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2020-21 Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar explaining the reasons which is scanned and reproduced as under: “APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL 1. In the above-mentioned case, the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC had passed an order on 26.08.2024. The statutory due date for filing this appeal before your Honour was 25.10.2024. However, the captioned appeal has been filed by the appellant on 18.12.2024 resulting in a delay of 54 days. 2. It is respectfully submitted that the delay was caused due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances, as elaborated hereinbelow for your sympathetic consideration and for the coffdonation of the delay, so that the appeal may kindly be admitted and the justice due to the appellant is rendered. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The learned CIT(A), NFAC vide order u/s 250 of the Act dated 26.08.2024 upheld the addition in this respect. 4. The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 16.09.2022, during that period the Appellant had approached an Independent consultant to look after his income-tax matters. The consultant appointed at that time had advised to file appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A) against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and accordingly appeal was been filed before the Hon'ble CIT(A) on 14.10.2022 duly within the time limit of 30 days as allowed under the provisions of the Act. However, due to inadequate follow-up and communication by the consultant, the appellant was not made aware of the notices issued during the appellate proceedings, leading to the decision being passed ex-parte by the Hon'ble CIT(A). 3 ITA No.6629/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2020-21 Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar 5. Recently, the appellant has appointed a new professional chartered accountant to take care of the Income tax affairs. During a review of the appellant's tax portal, the chartered accountant came across the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) and immediately advised the appellant to file the present appeal to seek remedy against the same. 6. The appellant humbly submits that the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but arose due to circumstances beyond his control and hence the same shall be admitted on the ground of equal and natural justice. 7. The appellant further assures this Hon'ble Tribunal of his commitment to adhere to all procedural requirements and cooperate fully in the proceedings henceforth. 8. An affidavit in support of the above facts is enclosed herewith as Annexure 1. 9. In view of the above, it is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to Bonafide reasons and beyond the appellant's control. Considering the bonafide mistake, it is humbly prayed that the delay caused in filing the captioned appeal may kindly be condoned. 10. In this connection, the appellant places reliance upon the following decisions with the relevant findings therefrom: a. Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471) wherein the treatment to condone the delay has been explained comprehensively. According to the Court the question whether to condone the delay or not was not very important, what was more significant is justice-oriented approach has to be adopted while dealing in condoning the delay. The Hon'ble Court adopted very liberal approach stating that refusing to condone delay would be decided on merits after hearing parties. Otherwise, the faith on 4 ITA No.6629/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2020-21 Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar justice could be defeated. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: \"Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.\" 11. In view of the facts and circumstances explained above and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it is humbly prayed that the delay of 54 days occurred in filing the captioned appeal may kindly be condoned in the interests of justice and equity, and it may be decided on merits and in accordance with law. It is submitted that by acceding to this humble request, the revenue is not going to be prejudiced but, on the other hand, the appellant would be put to grave harm and injury. 12. And for this act of kindness, the applicant shall ever remain grateful to Your Honours.” 2.1. The reason that caused delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal was because the assessee was not aware of the impugned order passes by the office of Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted that immediately the assessee approached the present AR and an appeal was filed before this Tribunal. He prayed that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that, the notices forwarded by assessee to the then tax consultant was being taken cognizance of by the erstwhile tax consultant. He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned as there is no malafide mistake / intention that could be attributable on the assessee in causing the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5 ITA No.6629/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2020-21 Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar 2.2. On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation of delay was of the opinion that the issue should be decided on merits. I have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before this Tribunal. 3. In my opinion, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for the delay that caused in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. Nothing to establish any such intention has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. There is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 4. Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the of 54 days delay caused in filing the present appeal as it is not attributable to the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. On merits it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a detailed order on merits as no representations were made by the assessee representative before the first appellate authority. In the interest of justice I remit the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue on merits. Assessee is directed to furnish all necessary evidence in support of its scheme which shall stand verified in accordance with law. 6. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being out must be granted to say. 6 ITA No.6629/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2020-21 Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20/02/2025 Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) Judicial Member Mumbai: Dated: 20/02/2025 Poonam Mirashi, /Dragon 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 "