RP PANCHAL HUF,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2452/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves RP Panchal HUF appealing against an order passed by the CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was initially delayed due to non-receipt of the appellate order and notice of hearing, which were sent to an outdated email address. Upon discovering the order in April 2025, the assessee filed the appeal on April 8, 2025. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the principles of substantial justice, decided to condone the delay and restore the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need for effective representation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773460 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2025
• 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: ANNAVARAMKOSURI
• Assessee Lawyers: TISHA BAGH AW DHAWAL SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2452/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 RP Panchal HUF Gala No. M. Sainath Industrial Estate, kotkar Road, Goregoan E, Mumbai. PAN – AAGHR2224F Vs ITO, Ward -31(3)(2) C-13, 4th Floor, Room No. 408D, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, BKC Bandra E Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Tisha bagh a/w Mr. Dhawal Shah Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 16.01.2025 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 2014-15. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 404 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 2452/Mum/2025 RP Panchal HUF, Mumbai. I, Mr. RP Panchal, an Indian Inhabitant, aged about 74 years, s/o DAYARAM PANCHAL, having PAN: AJAPP6545L residing at Unit M, Sainath Ind Est, Kotkar Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai 400065, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. I say that I am the Karta of RP Panchal HUF, a Hindu Undivided Family having address at Gala No. M, Sainath Industrial Estate, Kotkar Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai. 400063 and holding PAN: AAGHR2224F. I am duly authorized to affirm and submit this affidavit on behalf of the HUF. 2. I say that the appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 08.04.2025 against the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), arising out of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2016. The said CIT(A) order was issued and uploaded on the Income Tax Portal on 15.12.2023. 3. I say that the appeal was required to be filed on or before 13.02.2024. However, due to circumstances explained below, the appeal was filed only on 08.04.2025, resulting in a delay of 420 days. 4. I say that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to bona fide and genuine reasons beyond my control. 5. I say that I did not receive the appellate order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the same was electronically communicated to my old email ID, [e-mail]. I further say that even the notice of hearing was issued to the aforesaid email id. 6. I say that my official email ID had been changed to [e-mail] with effect from January 2017. The said email ID was correctly mentioned in Form No. 35 while filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appellate order was not sent on the aforesaid email address. 7. I further say that in addition to the above, the registered email addresses of the two key members of the HUF, namely [e-mail] and [e-mail], were duly updated on the Income Tax Portal. However, no communication including the appellate order were sent to these updated or registered email addresses. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 2452/Mum/2025 RP Panchal HUF, Mumbai. 8. I say that due to the above facts, no communication or intimation regarding the passing of the impugned appellate order was received by me. 9. I say that it was only in April'2025, when I engaged new consultants to review compliances and assist in filing returns from Financial Year 2025- 26 onwards that it was discovered that an order u/s 250 had been passed on 15.12.2023 for A.Y. 2014-15. I also say that the impugned appellate order states that the order is issued for A.Y. 2013-14 but the same is actually pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15. There are no proceedings pending for Α.Υ. 2013-14. 10. I say that the consultants immediately brought this to my notice and, without any undue delay, the appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 08.04.2025. 11. I say that the delay in filing the present appeal as well as the non- compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) were entirely unintentional and solely due to circumstances beyond my control. 12. I say that I have a strong case on merits, and if the delay is not condoned, I shall be highly prejudiced as substantial additions and demand will be confirmed without affording me sufficient opportunity to present my case. 13. I say that the reasons for the delay in filing appeal are also explained in detail in the prayer for condonation of delay being filed by the company before the Hon'ble Tribunal and I affirm the facts stated therein to be true and correct. 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 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 2452/Mum/2025 RP Panchal HUF, Mumbai. 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 us. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. We also 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, we 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 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 2452/Mum/2025 RP Panchal HUF, Mumbai. there was non cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a cost of Rs. 5,000/- 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 Ld. CIT(A) 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, we 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 22/09/2025 Sd/- - Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 22/09/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 2452/Mum/2025 RP Panchal HUF, Mumbai. 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 "