SHRI SIDDHACHAKRA VARDHMAN TAP JAIN AYAMBILKHATA,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX CPC, CENTRALIZED , MUMBAI

ITA 3153/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the assessee, Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain Ayambilkhata, against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23, which were dismissed due to inordinate delay in filing. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not admitted the appeals for delay and had not considered the merits of the case. The tribunal found procedural improprieties in the CIT(A)'s handling of the appeals, particularly the lack of opportunity given to the assessee to explain the delay before the appeals were dismissed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712705 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Other Referred Cases: M Sri Nivasulu vs ACIT(TS-817-HC-2023(MAD)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH SANGHVI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 3152 & 3153/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain Ayambilkhata, 1, Javle Bhavan, Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar (West)-400025. Vs. Income-tax CPC Jurisdictional Officer:Exem. Ward 2(3), MTNL Tel Ex. Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. PAN NO. AAAAS 1983 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajesh Sanghvi Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/07/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 1, Jaipur [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively. Printed from counselvise.com 2. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record orders for both the assessment years has for delay in filing the appeal. For CIT(A) in assessment year 2021 “5. Decision: The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is a substantial delay in the filing of appeal the appellant. The appellant has failed to justify the in ordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at appeal against the impugned order. It is well distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For invoking the aid of the section any cause which prevents a pe approaching the POs within time is considered sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. What may be sufficient cause in o is of essence is whether it was an act of prudent or reasonable man. The term sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner but must had acted diligently and not remained in acti Reliance is placed on the judgement on Hon'ble High Court in the case of M Sri Nivasulu vs ACIT(TS Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain ITA Nos. 3152 & 3153/MUM/2025 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned for both the assessment years has not admitted the appeal for delay in filing the appeal. For ready reference finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in assessment year 2021-22 is reproduced as under: The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is a substantial delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason was given by the appellant. The appellant has failed to justify the in ordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. It is well-settled law that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For invoking the aid of the section any cause which prevents a pe approaching the POs within time is considered sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been y the party by the exercise of due care and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. What may be sufficient cause in one case may be otherwise in another. What is of essence is whether it was an act of prudent or reasonable The term sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner but must had acted diligently and not remained in active. Reliance is placed on the judgement on Hon'ble High Court in the case of M Sri Nivasulu vs ACIT(TS-817-HC-2023(MAD) dated Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain Ayambilkhata 2 ITA Nos. 3152 & 3153/MUM/2025 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused . The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned admitted the appeal ready reference finding of the Ld. 22 is reproduced as under: The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is a substantial delay in for which no sufficient reason was given by the appellant. The appellant has failed to justify the in ordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken the relevant point of time for not filing of settled law that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The case clearly demonstrates that The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For invoking the aid of the section any cause which prevents a person approaching the POs within time is considered sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been y the party by the exercise of due care and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. What may be ne case may be otherwise in another. What is of essence is whether it was an act of prudent or reasonable The term sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner but must had acted diligently and Reliance is placed on the judgement on Hon'ble High Court in 2023(MAD) dated Printed from counselvise.com 21.12.2023. The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. It is well distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care: On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ve Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the cases of trivial delays have to be liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: \"In exercising discretion, und the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard.\" In view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no \"sufficient cause\" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well the condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect. Considering the above discussion and not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain ITA Nos. 3152 & 3153/MUM/2025 21.12.2023. The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. It is well-settled law that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is e and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care: On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further at the cases of trivial delays have to be liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: - \"In exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard.\" of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no \"sufficient cause\" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled to donation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect. Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain Ayambilkhata 3 ITA Nos. 3152 & 3153/MUM/2025 21.12.2023. The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of settled law that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is e and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the dabhai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further at the cases of trivial delays have to be liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the er section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no \"sufficient cause\" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed settled law that an appellant is not entitled to donation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any facts, the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, Printed from counselvise.com and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 2.1 Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 14 of the Paper Book and submitted that the appeal was instituted on 12.03.2025. The learned CIT(A) thereafter issued a notice on 17.03.2025 fixing the date of hearing for 24.03.2025. However, before the assessee could file an explanation in support of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal was disposed of by the CIT(A) on 20.03.2025, without response of the assessee 2.2 The learned Departmental Represent factual narrative as submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee. 2.3 On a careful consideration of the facts, we are of the opinion that the action of the learned CIT(A) is in clear violation of the principles of natural j issued notice proposing to fix a date of hearing, it was incumbent upon him to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to respond before deciding the issue, particularly when the matter involved condonation of not only be exercised cautiously, but fairly. find it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for adjudication Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain ITA Nos. 3152 & 3153/MUM/2025 and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as maintainable.” Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 14 of the Paper Book and submitted that the appeal was instituted on 12.03.2025. The learned CIT(A) thereafter issued a notice on 17.03.2025 fixing the date of hearing for 5. However, before the assessee could file an explanation in support of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal was disposed of by the CIT(A) on 20.03.2025, without response of the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative did not dispute the factual narrative as submitted by the learned counsel for the On a careful consideration of the facts, we are of the opinion that the action of the learned CIT(A) is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Once the appellate authority had issued notice proposing to fix a date of hearing, it was incumbent upon him to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to respond before deciding the issue, particularly when the matter involved condonation of delay—a matter where judicial discretion exercised cautiously, but fairly. In view of the above, we find it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for adjudication Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain Ayambilkhata 4 ITA Nos. 3152 & 3153/MUM/2025 and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 14 of the Paper Book and submitted that the appeal was instituted on 12.03.2025. The learned CIT(A) thereafter issued a notice on 17.03.2025 fixing the date of hearing for 5. However, before the assessee could file an explanation in support of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal was disposed of by the CIT(A) on 20.03.2025, without waiting for ative did not dispute the factual narrative as submitted by the learned counsel for the On a careful consideration of the facts, we are of the opinion that the action of the learned CIT(A) is in clear violation of the ustice. Once the appellate authority had issued notice proposing to fix a date of hearing, it was incumbent upon him to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to respond before deciding the issue, particularly when the matter a matter where judicial discretion In view of the above, we find it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for adjudication Printed from counselvise.com afresh. The learned CIT(A) shall decide the matter de novo, including the issue of condonation of delay, after affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3 It is further noted that the facts pertaining to the assessment year 2022–23 are identical to those in assessment year 2021 Accordingly, our directions hereinabove shall apply mutandis to the said year as well. As the matter is restored for fresh adjudication, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate the remaining grounds raised in the appeal at this stage. 4. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/07/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain ITA Nos. 3152 & 3153/MUM/2025 earned CIT(A) shall decide the matter de novo, including the issue of condonation of delay, after affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is further noted that the facts pertaining to the assessment e identical to those in assessment year 2021 Accordingly, our directions hereinabove shall apply to the said year as well. As the matter is restored for fresh adjudication, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate the s raised in the appeal at this stage. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. nounced in the open Court on 30/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain Ayambilkhata 5 ITA Nos. 3152 & 3153/MUM/2025 earned CIT(A) shall decide the matter de novo, including the issue of condonation of delay, after affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is further noted that the facts pertaining to the assessment e identical to those in assessment year 2021–22. Accordingly, our directions hereinabove shall apply mutatis to the said year as well. As the matter is restored for fresh adjudication, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate the s raised in the appeal at this stage. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for /07/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "