IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

I.T.A. No. 426/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 India Land and Vs. Deputy Properties Limited Commissioner of (Since merged with Income Tax, Central Equinox India Circle 6(4), Mumbai Developments Ltd.- Room No. 453, 4^th formerly known as Floor, Kautilya Indiabulls Real Estate Bhawan, C-41 to C- Limited) 43, G-Block, Bandra Office No.01-1001, Kurla Complex, WeWork, Blue One Bandra(East), Square, 1^st Floor, Udyog Mumbai-400051 Vihar, Phase 4 Rd, Gurugram.

Haryana-122016 PAN:AAACI9546A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri. K Gopal & Shri Om Kandalkar Respondent by Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT D.R.

Date of Hearing 04.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.03.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:

The Present appeal filed by the assessee arise out of order dated 22/09/2021 for assessment year 2016-17 passed by Ld.CIT(A) 54, Mumbai.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 968 days in filing present appeal before this Tribunal. In support of the application seeking condonation of delay stating as under:

“Sub: Filing of Application for condonation of delay.

Dear Sir, Please find enclosed two copies of the Application for condonation of delay, along with affidavit, in the abovementioned matter. Please acknowledge the same. A separate copy of the said application is being filed with the Departmental Representative.”

2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that, the impugned order was passed on 22/09/2021 during COVID period. He submitted that the assessee was to file the present appeal on or before 21/11/2021. He submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court suspended all limitations that fell during COVID Period till 30/05/2022. He thus submitted that the delay will further reduce to approximately 100 days if the said period till 30/05/2022 id excluded.

2.2 Be that as it may the Ld.AR vehemently submitted that assessee is not benefitted in any manner what s ever by not filing the present appeal within the period of limitation. He submitted that due to Scheme of arrangement passed by NCLT Chennai, on 03/03/2020, the management of the assessee underwent a complete revamping. He submitted that the erstwhile employees and Directors left the organisation and new members joined after change in the management.

2.3 He submitted that the new management was therefore not aware of the impugned order being passed. It is only when assessee received notice under section 226 of the Act, the management took cognizance of the situation and the appeal came to be filed. The Ld.AR prayed for the delay to be condoned, as the assessee has a good case on merits. In support he placed reliance on following decisions:

10. The Applicant relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case

167 ITR 471 (SC) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji.

3. On the contrary, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the condonation petition. He submitted that the assessee did not take necessary steps to file appeal even after it came to the knowledge subsequently upon receipt of notice under section 226 of the Act.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.

4. We note that the assessment orders were received by the assessee in the mail Id mentioned in Form 35 to be NIPUN.J@ Indiabulls.com. On perusal of Form 36 it is noted that the mail ID is different. The Submission of the assessee in the condonation petition is that, the erstwhile employees and management left the company post the Scheme of Arrangement being approved by NCLT Chennai. It is but natural that all the communication details automatically changed. And the impugned order was sent to assessee based on information available on the portal in so far as the present assessee is concerned. However, it was only when the assessee received the recovery notice that the mistake not having filed the appeal came into light. The