SAROJ MAHENDRAKUMAR AGARWAL,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 25(3)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 1605/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Saroj Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, the assessee, who appealed against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was initially delayed by 340 days, for which the assessee sought condonation. The ITAT, referencing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji, prioritized substantial justice over technicalities and condoned the delay. The assessee was previously ex-parte before the CIT(A), and the ITAT found sufficient cause for the assessee's inability to represent effectively at that stage. Consequently, the ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, emphasizing that the decision to restore should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the dispute.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314273 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• 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: AVINASH KARPE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JOSHI
• 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. 1605/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Saroj Mahendra Kumar Agarwal 5/A, Pravin Bldg, Sundervan CHS, S.V. Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400056. Vs. ITO – 25(3)(4) Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. PAN/GIR No. AABPA0184A (Applicant) Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue by Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 09.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. At the very outset I noticed that there is a delay of 340 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee . In this regard Ld. AR has filed an application for seeking 2 ITA No. 1605/Mum/2025 Saroj Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the basis of reasons mentioned in the application. 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 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. 3 ITA No. 1605/Mum/2025 Saroj Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai 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. 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. 4 ITA No. 1605/Mum/2025 Saroj Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.05.2025. Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 08/05/2025 KRK, PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai "