SURAT TEXTILES EXPORT ,MUMBAI V. ITO, 32(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5882/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Surat Textiles Export, the appellant, contesting an ex parte decision by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which dismissed their appeal due to procedural deficiencies. The appellant argued that the dismissal was unjust as they were not given adequate opportunity to present their case, primarily due to the death of a key partner and the lack of communication from the appellate authority. The tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, noting the circumstances that led to the procedural lapses, and decided to remand the case back to the first appellate authority for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25081 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: TUSHARNAGORI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, AM ITA No. 5882/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Surat Textiles Export 102 Shivam Building, Andheri Kurla Road, J B Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 059 Vs. ITO-32(1)(1) 217, 2nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai PAN/GIR No. ABQFS 2785 R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Tushar Nagori Respondent by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Date of Hearing : 01.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: The captioned appeal by the assessee, arises out of the order dated 07.12.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC short), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. Before we proceed to deal with the dispute arising in the appeal, it is necessary to observe, the Registry notified delay of 259 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has furnished an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an Affidavit. 3. We have heard the parties, on the issue of condonation of delay. It is the say of the assessee that the working partner of the firm, who was looking after the daily affairs of the business, died on 08.11.2013. The other partner, being a housewife, was not actively participating in the affairs of the firm. It is submitted, as a result, the firm became dormant and, thereafter, there was no other employee who could track the status 2 ITA No. 5882/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Surat Textiles Export vs. ITO of the appeal on the portal on a regular basis. It is further submitted, that the assessee did not receive any communication either through email or post, intimating that the appeal has been disposed of by the learned first appellate authority. The assessee could only get to know about the order passed by the first appellate authority, only after it received a show cause notice for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, on enquiry, the assessee could find out that the appeal has already been disposed of. Immediately, the assessee took steps to obtain a copy of the appeal order and filed the appeal before the Tribunal, belatedly. Thus, it is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to bona fide reasons. 4. Having considered the submissions of the parties and perused the contents of the delay condonation application and accompanying Affidavit, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reasonable cause. Therefore, we are inclined to condone a delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. The primary grievance of the assessee in the appeal is against ex parte disposal of its appeal by learned appellate authority that to in limine. 6. We have heard the parties, and perused the materials on record. Facts on record, reveal that the assessee had filed the appeal in physical form in May, 2015 and, thereafter, the appeal was migrated to NFAC. As observed by the learned first appellate authority, the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 35 was found without any grounds of appeal and statement of facts. It has further been observed by him that inspite of request made to the assessee to upload the grounds of appeal and statement of facts, the 3 ITA No. 5882/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Surat Textiles Export vs. ITO assessee failed to do so. Therefore, the appeal was treated as defective and dismissed, without deciding on merits. 7. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that no communication was physically received from learned first appellate authority. It has further been submitted that since the working partner has passed away and the other partner, being a housewife, and there being no other employee in the firm, the assessee could not track the proceedings in the Income Tax Department portal. In our view, the aforesaid submissions made by the assessee, merit consideration. Moreover, the appeal filed before learned first appellate authority has been dismissed in limine, without going into the merits. Therefore, in our view, the assessee deserves an opportunity to represent its case before learned first appellate authority, so that the appeal can be decided on merits. For enabling the assessee to do so, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned first appellate authority and restore the issues arising in appeal to the file of learned first appellate authority, for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee is directed to remove the deficiencies in appeal, by uploading the requisite documents necessary for deciding the appeal. Needless to mention, the assessee must be given due opportunity of being heard before deciding the appeal. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on Sd/- Sd/- (Renu Jauhri) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 06.01.2025 4 ITA No. 5882/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Surat Textiles Export vs. ITO 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 "