Case Law Details
MNP Associates Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Quantum Appeal Missed by Mistake— Professional’s Oversight in Filing Appeal Not Malafide: ITAT Condoned Delay & Restores Both Orders for Fresh Hearing
Present appeals arise from orders dated 20/03/2025 & 15/04/2025 passed by NFAC for AY 2018-19. In ITA No. 5474/Mum/2025, there was delay of 93 days. Assessee submitted that the impugned quantum order was mistakenly believed by its tax professional to have already been appealed. Appeal was therefore filed only against the penalty order. This was stated to be a bonafide mistake without any malice. DR objected but could not rebut these submissions.
Tribunal observed that Revenue could not establish any malafide intention. Placing reliance on Collector Land Acquisition Vs Katiji (167 ITR 471), Tribunal held that “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal interpretation & technical lapses should not defeat substantial justice. Delay was therefore condoned.
On merits, Tribunal noted that both impugned orders were ex parte. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals by observing that Assessee was not interested in pursuing the matter. Assessee explained that notices were sent to the email ID of its employee who failed to inform it, resulting in non-compliance. Tribunal held that Assessee deserves a proper opportunity of being heard.
Accordingly, both matters were remanded to CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing consideration of all submissions & evidences in accordance with law and granting due opportunity.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
Present appeals filed by the assesse against order dated 20/03/2025 and 15/04/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2018-19.
2. The Ld.AR submitted that in the quantum appeal in ITA No. 5474/Mum/2025 there is delay of 93 days in filing present appeal before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the impugned order was sent to the tax professional who filed appeal only against the penalty order under the mistaken belief that the appeal against the quantum order has already been filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that it is a bonafide mistake without any malice intention. He thus requested for the delay to be condoned.
2.1. On the contrary the Ld. DR though objected for the condonation, could not controvert the submissions of the assessee.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records placed before us.
3. It is noted that there is no malafide intention on behalf of assessee in not filing the present appeal before this Tribunal, within the period of limitation. Nothing to establish any such intention has been filed by the revenue before this In our opinion there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions.
3.1. We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:-
“The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.
And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :
1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
………………………………………… 1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”
3.2. Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeal as it is not attributable to the assessee.
In any event, though the procedural law pertaining to the limitation has been drafted to construe it strictly, the fact remains that, considering such technicalities will not advance the cause of justice.
Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal in ITA No. 5474/Mum/2025 before this Tribunal.
4. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned orders passed in both the appeals are ex parte orders without considering the submissions of the assessee. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding that the assessee is not interested in contesting the case. The Ld. AR submitted that four notices were issued to the assesse, that was sent to the e-mail ID of the employee of the assessee who failed to inform the same to the assessee. The Ld. AR prays for an opportunity of being heard in the interest of justice.
4.1. Considering the submission of the Ld. AR, we are of the opinion that assessee deserves an opportunity of being heard on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, remit the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the case in accordance with law having regards to submissions/evidences furnished by the assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee.
Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27/11/2025
Author Bio
