RAMJEE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI V. DCIT-CIRCLE 13(3)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

ITA 5738/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Ramjee Trading Private Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Delhi, which had dismissed their appeal against an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The primary contention was the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone a delay of 167 days in filing the appeal, attributed to the appellant's financial crisis and operational challenges. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, noting the absence of a responsible person at the office during the relevant period and the impact of financial constraints on their ability to manage legal affairs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32713 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"D\" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5738/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. Ramjee Trading Private Ltd. 101, 1st Floor, Gurunanak Industrial Estate, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400072. [PAN: AADCR0252P] The DCIT-Circle 13(3)(2), Mumbai Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. …………. Vs …………. Appellant Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Ravindra Poojary Shri Rajesh Meshram Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 04.02.2025 27.02.2025 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order, dated 19/10/2024, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 27/03/2015, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. When the appeal was taken for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee moved an application for admission of additional evidence. He submitted that the ITA No.5738/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 2 Assessee was prevented from filing the additional evidence before the CIT(A) since the appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed by the CITA(A) has been barred by limitation. It was submitted that the Appellant had moved an application seeking condonation of delay of 167 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee placed reliance on record brief submissions, dated 06/02/2025, and submitted that the Appellant has a good case on merits and that the Authorised Representative for the Assessee would have been able to persuade the CIT(A) to allow the appeal on merits in case the CIT(A) had granted an opportunity. It was submitted that in the interest of justice the Assessee should be granted an opportunity to be heard on merits. 3. Per Contra Learned Department Representative placed reliance upon the order passed by the CIT(A). 4. On perusal of record we find that the Assessee had filed affidavit in support of application seeking condonation of delay filed before the CIT(A). The Assessee had explained that the delay of 167 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It was submitted that due to the lack of working capital and continuous losses Assessee-Company could not bear the cost of fixed employees, and reduced the workforce. During the course of hearing the Authorised Representative had submitted that there was no responsible person at the registered office and only office peons were there who could not appreciate gravity of the matter and failed to co-ordinate and follow up for filing appeal. It was also pointed out that the Assessee-Company was going through financial crisis at the relevant time and in support reliance was ITA No.5738/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 3 placed upon financial statements forming part of the paper-book filed by the Assessee before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee vehemently contended that the Assessee had nothing to gain by delaying the filing of appeal. The delay was caused by genuine hardship being faced by the Assessee-Company. On perusal of the order impugned we find that the CIT(A) has rejected the application seeking condonation of delay by simply stating that the Assessee had failed to show sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Having perused the impugned order, we are not in agreement with the approach adopted by the Learned CIT(A). In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken and that the aforesaid doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner, more so in circumstances where a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late (as is the case in appeal before us). Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold. 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. Further, in our view, the Assessee had provided reasonable explanation for delay of 167 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A). It was explained that the delay in filing of the appeal was on account of lack of financial and human resources at the disposal of the Assessee-Company. There is nothing on record to doubt the bonafides of the aforesaid explanation furnished by the Assessee which was supported by affidavit. ITA No.5738/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 4 Therefore taking into consideration overall facts and circumstance of the present case and in the interest of justice, we set-aside the impugned order, dated 19/10/2024, passed by the CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of CIT(A) with the directions to decide the ground raised by the Assessee in appeal on merits as per law after taking into consideration and adjudicating upon the application for additional evidence and documents/details, if any, filed by the Assessee before the CIT(A). It is clarified that the CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5. In terms of the aforesaid, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Girish Agarwal) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंकDated : 27.02.2025 Karishma J. Pawar, Stenographer ITA No.5738/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 5 आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त/ Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीयप्रदिदनदध, आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, म ुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपिप्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यकपुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "