Khimjibhai Govabhai Ravriya Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Delay of 115 Days Not Condoned: Mumbai ITAT Rejects Appeal Despite Jurisdictional Challenge to s.148 Notice
Tribunal dealt with Assessee’s appeal which was delayed by 115 days. Assessee explained that since CIT(A) had set aside the ex-parte order passed u/s 144 & restored the matter to AO, he was under the bona fide belief that no further appeal was needed. Later, on consulting a new professional, he learnt about an alleged jurisdictional defect in the notice issued u/s 148. He claimed that Bombay High Court & Mumbai Tribunal had recently quashed similar notices and therefore he filed the appeal belatedly.
Tribunal examined the affidavit & found that no sufficient cause was demonstrated. It held that delay was entirely due to Assessee’s negligence & want of due diligence. Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Pathapati Subba Reddy (2024) explaining strict application of limitation u/s 3 of the Limitation Act & discretionary but cautious power of condonation u/s 5. Tribunal noted that merits of the case or existence of a jurisdictional issue cannot justify delay, & that Assessee was not prevented by any reasonable cause from filing appeal within time.
Tribunal also distinguished Assessee’s reliance on Anandkumar Jain (ITA 4192/Mum/2022) where delay was condoned because the binding jurisdictional High Court judgment was reversed later by Supreme Court. Tribunal held that no such similar situation existed here. Since CIT(A) had already restored matter to AO, Tribunal observed that Assessee could still raise all jurisdictional arguments before AO. Finally, Tribunal refused to condone the 115-day delay & dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, keeping the issue in grounds open for adjudication in an appropriate case.
