IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 105/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19)

ITA No. 106/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21)

Ekta Sahakari Patpedhi v/s. Income Tax Officer, Maryadit बनाम Assessment Unit,Ward –

Shirlay – Agashi Near 4(4),Ashar IT Park, Road No. Shirlay Church, Post – 16/Z, Nehru Nagar, Wagle Agashi Tal – Vasai Palghar, Industrial Estate, 400 604, 401301, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAE2886M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah,AR Respondent by : Shri Manish Ajudiya (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 03.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The above captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Years [A.Y.] 2018-19 and 2020-21. Since the issues are common and interlinked, these appeals are being taken up together for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity.

2. At the outset, it may be stated here that there is delay exceeding

300 days in filing this appeal for both the years. As per affidavit of on record and oral submissions made by the ld.AR, it is pleaded that the delay was mainly on account of the fact that wife of the Chairman who is also one of the directors is suffering from lung cancer which requires regular follow up, treatment and therapy and the Chairman who looks after all legal matters could not take immediate decision and resultant delay in appointment of consultant. After his appointment, the CA was also suffering from various illnesses because of which he also could not look after the regular work. All these reasons resulted in delay. There is no malafide intention not any advantage available to the assessee by causing such delay which may be condoned.

3. We have duly considered the issue and find some merit in the contentions. We have also gone through medical documents filed in support of the above submissions. However, it is equally true that there is substantial delay in both the years which also indicates some element of carelessness on part of the assessee who must have other persons in responsible position to look after income tax issues. It is the fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pursue the appeal and comply with the notices and proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities. The framework of the Act rely heavily on the co-operation and active participation of the taxpayer. The principles of natural justice operate both ways, while the Revenue authorities are required to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the taxpayer is equally obligated to co-operate with the authorities and utilize the opportunities extended. In the present case, despite receiving adequate opportunities, the assessee displayed a casual approach and indifference, which not only delayed the appellate proceedings but also burdened the judicial system. Such conduct cannot be overlooked.

3.1 In light of the non-compliant attitude of the assessee, levy of cost needs to be evaluated in this case as cost serves as a necessary deterrent to ensure that taxpayers act with due diligence in pursuing their appeals and respecting the timelines and processes laid down under the law. Moreover, considering assessee’s non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude and lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal, we impose on the assessee a cost of Rs.12,500/- each aggregating to Rs 25,000/-for both the above appeals. The cost shall be deposited to the credit of the Income Tax Department within 15 days of the receipt of this order.

4. We first take up appeal in ITA No. 105/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19).The grounds appeals