SHARADAPRASAD DUBARIRAM YADAV,MUMBAI V. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

ITA 5458/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sharadaprasad Dubariram Yadav, a resident individual employed with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the dismissal of his appeal in limine by the first appellate authority due to a 10-day delay in filing the appeal, which the authority did not condone despite the assessee providing an affidavit and medical certificate explaining the delay was due to illness. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances, decided that the appeal should not have been dismissed in limine and should be decided on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473933 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONIKA H. PANDE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADEEP HATHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 147; 133A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM ITA No. 5458/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sharadaprasad Dubariram Yadav Prem Nagar, Rahiwasi Sudhar Sangh, Teen Dongri Link Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 104 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(3)(3), Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AAGPY 8314 F (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Pradeep Hathi Respondent by : Ms. Monika H. Pande Date of Hearing : 27.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 20.08.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017- 18. 2. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The basic grievance of the assessee is dismissal of its appeal in limine by learned first appellate authority without condoning delay. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a resident individual and derives income from salary through his employment with Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had filed his return of income in regular course. A survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in case of Shri Vijay Sawant, a 2 ITA No. 5458/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Sharadaprasad Dubariram Yadav vs. ITO tax practitioner through whom the assessee had filed his return of income. Pursuant to survey, assessment in case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and ultimately, an order of assessment was passed on 04.05.2023, adding an amount of Rs.96,120/- on account of suppression of income. Contesting the said addition, the assessee filed an appeal before learned first appellate authority. It appears, there was delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before learned first appellate authority. Explaining, the cause of delay, the assessee had filed an Affidavit before learned first appellate authority, stating that due to his illness, the appeal could not be filed in time. In support, copy of medical certificate was also furnished. However, disbelieving the contention of the assessee, learned first appellate authority dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay, while observing that the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for delay. 4. Having considered rival submissions, we are of the view, instead of dismissing assessee’s appeal in limine without condoning the delay, learned first appellate authority should have decided the appeal on merits. As could be seen from the facts on record, the delay in filing the appeal was not inordinate, but of only 10 days. Furthermore, the assessee has furnished an Affidavit supported by medical certificate, explaining the cause of delay to be on account of his illness. In our view, the Affidavit and supporting evidence furnished by the assessee do establish sufficient cause of delay. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned first appellate authority and restore the issues to him with a direction to admit the assessee’s 3 ITA No. 5458/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Sharadaprasad Dubariram Yadav vs. ITO appeal and adjudicate on merits, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.01.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (B R Baskaran) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 29.01.2025 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "