SEBASTIAN FRANCIS CHALISSERY,MUMBAI V. ITO, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 3034/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sebastian Francis Chalissery Radha against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had dismissed his appeal due to a significant delay in filing. The original assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, added INR 13,00,000 to the Assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2017-2018, which was claimed to be unexplained cash deposit. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 617-day delay in filing, without condoning the delay. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided the Assessee an opportunity to explain the delay adequately and thus remanded the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711293 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APPELLANTS DAUGHTERS INTENDED MARRIAGE
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3034/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Sebastian Francis Chalissery Radha 16 Seema CHS Ltd., Ghatla Village, Chembur, Mumbai - 400071, Maharashtra. [PAN:ACTPC3692H] …………. Appellant Income Tax Officer, Mumbai IT Office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Mumbai - 400703, Maharashtra. Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Ms. Shivani Shah Shri Pravin Salunkhe Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 17.07.2025 22.07.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 19/02/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), 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 against the Assessment Order, dated 23/12/2019, passed under Section 144 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant was misguided and poorly represented by his then Authorized Representative before lower authorities. Due to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3034/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 2 such incompetency, the assessment was concluded ex-parte without dealing merits, causing serious prejudice to the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, unless the matter is adjudicated on merits, the appellant may suffer an unjust and unbearable tax burden despite having a reasonable and bonafide explanation supported by facts. 3. Cash deposited amounting to Rs.13,00,000 was out of prior withdrawals of Rs.15,00,000/- made between August and October 2016 for appellant’s daughters intended marriage and personal needs. Subsequent redeposit of unutilized cash during demonetisation period cannot be treated as unexplained.” 3. The facts as emerging from record are that the Assessee in the present case is a resident individual. For the Assessment Year 2017- 2018, assessment under Section 144 of the Act was framed on the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 23/12/2019, and addition of INR.13,00,000/- was made under Section 69A of the Act to the returned income of INR.3,33,340/-. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal vide order, dated 19/02/2025. The aforesaid order passed by the CIT(A) has been impugned by the Assessee by way of the present appeal. 4. We have perused the material on record and have considered the rival submission. 5. On perusal of record, we find that there was delay of 617 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Though the Assessee had filed affidavit explaining the aforesaid delay the CIT(A) declined to condoned the delay on the ground that the Assessee had failed to show that the delay was caused for reasons beyond the control of the Assessee. During the course of hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee had a good case on merits and that the Assessing Officer did not grant Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3034/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 3 opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate that the delay in filing the appeal was on account of reasons beyond the control. He submitted that the Assessee did not receive the correct legal advice while pursuing the assessment/appellate proceedings and therefore, requested that the grounds raised by the Assessee be considered on merits. Per Contra the Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessee had failed to make out a case for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) and therefore, the question of examining the merits during the present proceedings did not arise. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the appeal was instituted by the Assessee on 30/09/2021 against the Assessment Order dated, 23/12/2019 passed under Section 144 of the Act. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed ‘in limine’ since the Learned CIT(A) had declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. On perusal of the order impugned, we note that there was no allegation that the Assessee was negligent in pursuing the appeal. The CIT(A) had recorded that the Assessee had failed to take due care while pursuing the tax proceedings. We note that there is nothing on record to suggest that before drawing the aforesaid inference, the Assessee was confronted by the CIT(A). Accordingly, we accept the contention of the Assessee that the CIT(A) had failed to grant to the Assessee any opportunity to being heard in relation to reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, given the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order, dated 19/02/2025, passed by the CIT(A) with the directions to decide the application seeking condonation of delay afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee would be at liberty to file such documents/details/submission in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It is clarified that in case the delay in filing appeal is condoned, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3034/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 4 CIT(A) would adjudicate grounds raised by the Assessee on merits as per law after putting the Assessee to notice and after granting the Assessee opportunity to make submissions on merits. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No.2 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, while Ground No.1 is dismissed having been rendered infructuous. 7. In result the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 22.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Om Prakash Kant) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 22.07.2025 Milan,LDC Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3034/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 5 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "