IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6627/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

D B Infratech B-24, Avanti Apartment, Haridas Nagar, Shimpoli, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400092.

[PAN: AAHFD4153G] …………. Appellant JCIT, Range 32(1)

C-11, Room No. 208, 2^nd Floor, Vs Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Mahaveer Jain For the Respondent/Department : Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT Date Conclusion of hearing : 10.02.2025 Pronouncement of order : 27.02.2025

O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order, dated 30/05/2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had Dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2016, passed under Section

143(3) of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2013-2014.

2. When the appeal was taken for hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal be condoned and the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without examining the merits granting one more opportunity to the Appellant to make out his case before the CIT(A) on merits. Explain the delay in filing the present appeal, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the delay was caused on account of inadvertent mistake committed by the employee of the company who was tasked with the job of keeping track of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) and was asked to arrange for filing appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A).

3. Per Contra Learned Departmental Representative objected to the condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Supporting the order passed by CIT(A), Learned Departmental Representative submitted that despite having been granted five opportunities by the CIT(A), the Assessee failed to file any submissions/documents before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal. Referring to paragraph 4.3 of the order impugned, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A) had also given findings on merit.

4. We have considered the rival submission and have perused the material on record.

5. On perusal of record we find that assessment was framed on the Assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act at assessed income of INR.2,46,99,950/- as against returned income of INR.1,62,47,142. In appeal preferred before CIT(A) against the aforesaid Assessment Order, no submissions/documents were filed. Resulting in dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). Being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

6. We find that the order impugned by way of the present appeal was passed by the CIT(A) on 30/05/2023 and the appeal was filed by the Assessee on 18/12/2024. Though in the defect memo issued by the registry it has been stated that there was a delay of 140 days in filing the appeal, we find that the Assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay of 508 days in filing the present appeal. The Appellant has filed application seeking condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that that the delay was caused on account of inadvertent error committed by an employee of the company. Despite receiving instructions to forward the copy of the impugned order to the tax consultant for filing appeal, the employee inadvertently missed out on doing so. When the details were sought regarding the status of appeal filed against the order impugned, the management of the Assessee-firm got to know about the aforesaid mistake committed by the employee. Soon thereafter, steps