APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-PBPT-2451/MUM/2025 Stay FPA-PBPT-337/MUM/2025 Alka Suresh Chaturvedi … Appellant Versus DCIT (BPU-1) Mumbai & Ors. … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv.

Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Rai, Adv.

Ms. Varsha Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Tarun, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Manmeet S. Arora, SPP CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

27.11.2025 Heard the application for condonation of delay. The Ld. counsel submits that impugned order was passed on 01.10.2024. However, a copy of the order was not received by the appellant; rather, a letter was sent to the Adjudicating Authority on 02.04.2025. In response to it, a letter was sent by the Adjudicating Authority on 17.04.2025 stating about the dispatch of the order and its receipt. The appellant had not actually received the order, thus another letter was sent to the Adjudicating Authority on 29.04.2025 with a request to send the copy of the order, as it has not been received till date. Pursuant to the repeated requests, certified copy of the impugned order was provided to the appellant on 07.05.2025, and if the limitation is counted from the aforesaid date, the appeal was filed within 45 days on 20.06.2025. In fact, there is no delay in filing the appeal if it is counted from the date of receipt of the order, however, as an abundant caution, the application has been filed to seek condonation of delay.

The Learned counsel further submitted that the appeal has been filed by Benamidar within the period of limitation. The appeal could not be filed by the appellant immediately rather, when he could know about the order, the communication was made with the Adjudicating Authority. A reference of the judgment of the Apex Court has been given to emphasize condonation of delay, as the appeal should not be dismissed on a technical ground of delay in filing the appeal. The prayer was accordingly made to allow the application.

The Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application. It is submitted that the explanation of delay has been given with misleading statements of fact. The appellant participated in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and was required to remain vigilant for the date of passing of the order which is otherwise notified on the website. In any case, on passing of the order, copy was dispatched to the appellant and has been received in his office. Despite receipt of the copy of the order, the appeal was not filed within limitation rather, to circumvent and cover the default, letter was sent to the Adjudicating Authority to seek a copy of the order. It is on the pretext that copy of the impugned order sent by the Adjudicating Authority is not traceable in their office. This was nothing but admission about default of the appellant that even after receipt of the copy, they could not file appeal within time period. In view of the above, no reason for delay of more than five months could be given and whatever excuse has been narrated in the application, it is only to cover the default and otherwise making misleading statements of fact. The prayer was accordingly made to dismiss the application.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

It is a fact that impugned order was passed on 01.10.2024 while the appeal was preferred on 20.06.2025 along with the application for condonation of delay. The appellant has not disputed their representation before the Adjudicating Authority. The date of pronouncement is notified however, even if we ignore the aforesaid, the Adjudicating Authority dispatched the order to the appellant. The receipt of the order is indicated in the acknowledgment and has not been alleged to be a person not related to the appellant; rather, no such fact has been given. It is especially when this Tribunal asked about the signature contained on the receipt, it could not be indicate