YOGESH RAVINDRA MATHURIA,MUMBAI V. DCIT 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2685/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Yogesh Ravindra Mathuria against the order of the CIT(A), which confirmed various additions to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2010-11. The primary contention was the alleged violation of natural justice, as the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, citing a delay in filing without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's claims regarding the timeliness of the appeal and the lack of opportunity for the assessee to present his case. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711731 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARY; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIRAJ MEHTA; AR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" | आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ा यपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2685/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Yogesh Ravindra Mathuria 503, Trishul Heights Next to Blue Ocean CHS Ekta Nagar Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400067 [PAN: AADPM2393M] Vs DCIT – 42(1)(1), Mumbai अपीला थ\u0016/ (Appellant) \u0017\u0018 यथ\u0016/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Viraj Mehta, A/R Revenue by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 15/04/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2010-11. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1) Ground No. 1: Violation of Natural Justice On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Said addition confirmed is bad in law and liable to be deleted as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. 2) Ground No. 2: Appeal filed within statutory time limit On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that appeal filed is delayed by 56 days and no explanation has been offered however, there is no delay is filing the appeal. Said rejection of appeal is bad in law and additions are liable to be deleted as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 2685/Mum/2025 2 3) Without prejudice to above ground, Ground No. 3: Condonation of Delay On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the appeal on account that no condonation of delay for filing appeal is filed. Said denial is bad in law and additions are liable to be deleted as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. 4) Ground No. 4: Addition as IFHP of Rs. 50,400/- On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer under the head House Property of Rs. 50,400/-. Such confirmation of addition by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and erroneous in facts and thereby addition be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 50,400/-. 5) Ground No. 5: LTCG of Rs. 17,13,966/- On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer under the head LTCG of Rs. 17,13,966/-. Such confirmation of addition by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and erroneous in facts and thereby addition be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 17,13,966/-. 6) Ground No. 6: STCG of Rs. 43,03,521/- On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer under the head STCG of Rs. 43,03,521/-. Such confirmation of addition by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and erroneous in facts and thereby addition be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 43,03,521/-. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind or amend any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. The order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that there was delay in filing the appeal by 56 days. The ld. CIT(A) was of the firm belief that the assessee ought to have satisfactorily explained the dela in filing the appeal. However, before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly contended that there was no delay in filing the appeal and because the assessee could not receive the notice issued by the ld. CIT(A), the proceedings, could not be attended. We further find that on the pretext that the appeal was barred by limitation, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 2685/Mum/2025 3 4. We are of the considered opinion that if the claim of the assessee was that there was no delay in filing the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have given reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the assessee to justify his stand. Without adjudicating the appeal and without considering the merits of the case, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, which is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 25th July, 2025 at Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 25/07/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs आदेश की \u0014ितिलिप अ\u0019ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u001b / The Appellant 2. \u0014 थ\u001b / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु! / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु! ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \u0014ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड% फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "