SHRI RAM STEELS ,MUMBAI V. ITO, WARD, 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4015/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Ram Steels, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had dismissed their earlier appeal due to a significant delay and non-prosecution. The appellant argued that the delay should be calculated from the date they received the intimation order, which was only on 5.08.2023, and not from the date of the intimation itself. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the affidavit provided by the appellant regarding the receipt of the intimation was unrebutted and supported by evidence. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back for de novo adjudication on merits, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473361 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASIF KAR MALI
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRIT SANGHVI
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250; 143(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J(SMC)’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4015/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Shri Ram Steels A-8, Sarvodaya Nagar, Panjrapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. PAN/GIR No. AARFS5226K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Kirit Sanghvi Revenue by Shri. Asif Karmali (SR DR) Date of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement 08/11/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 passed in Appeal no. ADDL/JCIT (A)-4 DELHI/10001/2014-15 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"Act\"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2015-16, wherein learned CIT(A) has ITA no. 4015/MUM/2024 Shri Ram Steels 2 dismissed assessee's appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay. 2. The brief facts state that the appellant filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 28.09.2015. The intimation order u/s. 143(1) was passed on 09.04.2016, against which an appeal was preferred on 04.09.2023, before learned CIT(A), which was dismissed for non-prosecution and delay. 3. Appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal, stating that there is a delay of seven years and five months, ignoring the fact that the impugned intimation order was communicated to the assessee only on 5.08.2023. 4. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing. 5. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for both the parties. 6. Learned AR has submitted that the appeal was filed on 04.09.2023, immediately after receiving the impugned intimation on 5.08.2023. The time period should have been computed from the date of receipt of the intimation order. Prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by learned CIT(A). 7. Learned DR has supported the impugned order. 8. On the perusal of the records, we find that Mr. Krunal Atul Parekh for the assessee has filed an affidavit, stating that the assessee received the e-mail only on 05.08.2023 from the assessing officer, demanding payment of tax for A.Y. 2015-16. ITA no. 4015/MUM/2024 Shri Ram Steels 3 Assessee contacted the assessing officer and obtained the intimation and filed the appeal within 30 days thereafter. The contents of the assessee’s affidavit are unrebutted, hence we find no reason to disbelieve the assessee’s statement on affidavit in absence of any contrary evidence. In such circumstances, we condone the delay in filing appeal before learned CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merit. We direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.06.2024 is set aside. The case is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 08.11.2024. Sd/- (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 08/11/2024 Anandi Nambi, Steno Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT ITA no. 4015/MUM/2024 Shri Ram Steels 4 BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// "