IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.4105/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

AZB AND PARTNERS vs PCIT, Mumbai-8, AZB House, Peninsula Room No.611, 6^th Floor, Aayakar Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Kadam MAG, Lower Parel, 020 Mumbai-400 013 PAN: AAKFA0281H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri Vinayak Bhat Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Date of hearing : 16/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 19/09/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai-8 (in brief, the ‘Ld.PCIT’) passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2020-21, date of order 01/02/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (in short, the “Ld.

AO”), order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 24/09/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.281,18,79,130/- for the impugned assessment year under the normal provisions of the Act. The case was subsequently selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine the issue of “Claim of any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP” along with other issues. The assessment was ultimately completed, and the total income was assessed at Rs.284,96,70,790/-, after making an addition of Rs.3,77,91,656/- on account of cess, treating it as non-

business expenditure. Consequently, tax was levied on the assessed income.

Invoking the provisions of Section 263, the Ld. PCIT observed from Clause 34(a) of the Tax Audit Report (TAR) that in Column 5, under Section 195 “Other sums,” the tax auditor had reported a total payment of Rs.9,97,14,451/-. Out of this, the amount on which tax was required to be deducted and collected was reported at Rs.5,91,44,605/-. According to the Ld. PCIT, this implied that tax was not deducted on the balance amount of Rs.4,05,69,846/-, which was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Ld. PCIT further observed that the Ld. AO, during assessment proceedings, had not verified this balance payment of Rs.4,05,69,846/- in respect of non-deduction of TDS. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act and issued a notice to the assessee. The assessee duly filed its reply in compliance with the notice. After considering the submissions, the Ld. PCIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and set aside the impugned assessment order for verification. Being aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us.

3. The Ld. AR submitted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 45 days. An affidavit, duly affirmed by Shri Bahram Navroz Vakil, the managing partner of the assessee-firm, dated 23/07/2025, has been placed on record. As per the said affidavit, the assessee stated that the order passed under section 263 was received on 01/02/2025. However, within the prescribed due date, by mistake, the appeal petition along with Form No. 36 was filed before the Assessing Officer, Circle 16(2), Mumbai, vide letter dated 25/02/2025, though the covering letter was duly addressed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. On realizing the mistake, the assessee immediately filed the appeal petition with Form No. 36 before the ITAT, i.e., the competent jurisdiction, on 13/06/2025. The Ld. AR further explained that the mistake occurred due to a misconception of jurisdiction by the clerk of the assessee’s office, resulting in the petition being filed before the Assessing Authority instead of the Tribunal. However, the requisite appeal fee had been paid within time on 24/02/2025. Thus, the error was purely inadvertent and uni