SYMBOLIST TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. ITO, WARD 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 93/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Symbolist Technology Pvt Ltd, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, concerning the assessment year 2022-23. The appeal was initially dismissed ex parte due to a delay in filing, which the assessee attributed to the illness of their tax advocate. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present their case, as there was no evidence of notice being served for the hearing. Consequently, the ITAT decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474466 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONIKA H PANDE; .
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ KATARUKA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 250; 143(1); 13

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIAMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.93 /Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Symbolist Technology Pvt Ltd 255, Jai Hind Co.opp.Hsg Society, R-3 Wing, Mahatma Phule Nagar, Khartan Road, Thane Bazar S.O. Thane-400 601 PAN: ABECS0569G vs The Assessing Officer, Ward- 15(3)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Adv Respondent by : Ms. Monika H Pande,SR. AR. Date of hearing : 18/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 19/02/2025 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M.: Instant Appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, {in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’} order passed under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for brevity the “Act”) for A.Y. 2022-23, date of order 27/05/2024. The impugned 2 ITA No.93 /Mum/2025 Symbolist Technology Pvt Ltd order was emanated from the order of the CPC, Bengaluru (for brevity the “Ld.AO”), order passed under section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 07/08/2023. 2. During the arguments before the Bench, the Ld. AR stated that the appeal had been filed with a delay of 165 days. An affidavit was duly submitted by Mr. Sachin Brijraj Tiwari, the Director of the assessee company, in support of the condonation of delay.The Ld. AR explained that the assessee company's tax advocate, Shri Ratan Soor, had been in poor health and was advised complete rest, which resulted in his prolonged absence from daily office work. Due to his illness, the advocate was unable to track updates on the Income Tax Department's portal. Consequently, the assessee only became aware of the appeal's disposal upon receiving the demand notice. Immediately thereafter, the assessee took necessary action and filed the appeal.The Ld. DR did not raise any strong objections to the assessee’s submissions. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 165 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The Ld. AR argued that the assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the Ld. CIT(A). The first appeal was filed with a delay of 13 days, and the reasons for the delay were duly explained at the time of filing. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation petition, deeming it non-maintainable under Section 249(2) of the Act.It was further contended that the assessee had not received any notice of hearing from the office of the Ld. CIT(A). Upon perusal of the appellate order, we find that the appellate authority has not made any reference to the service of such notice. 4. However, the appellate decision was made without considering the assessee's submission, leading to a denial of a fair opportunity and a violation of natural 3 ITA No.93 /Mum/2025 Symbolist Technology Pvt Ltd justice. The assessee was deprived of the chance to present their claim before the 1st appellate authority. In appeal order there is no discussion about the issuance of notice to the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub served if the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for consideration of assessee’s plea. The ld. DR has not made any strong objection against the submission of the ld. AR. We are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit the appeal procedure before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing for setting aside proceedings. On the other hand, the assessee should be diligent in set aside appeal proceeding for expeditious disposal of appeal. 5. In the result, the appeal in ITA No.93/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th day of February 2025. Sd/- sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,दिन ांक/Dated: 19/02/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रदिव िी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुक्त CIT 4. दवभ गीयप्रदिदनदि, आय.अपी.अदि., मुबांई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. ग र्डफ इल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai "