##PAGE1##

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

BENCH: SMC

BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA 3831/MUM/2026 निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-2021)

M D RUPAREL AND SONS INCOME TAX OFFICER-

24(2)(1)

1-A, TORANA APTS ,SAHAR CARGO ROAD, OPP P AND T PIRAMAL CHAMBER,

COLONY, ANDHERI EAST, Vs. LALBAUG, PAREL ,MUMBAI MUMBAI-400099, MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI-400012,

MAHARASHTRA अपीलध्ቕी Appellant ्ቚ्ቓ्ቕी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAFFM4798J

अपीलध्ቕी ्ቛारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Vivek Sharma ्ቚ्ቓ्ቕी ्ቛारा/Respondent represented by: Ms Kanika Naroola

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 29-Jun-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 20.08.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS vide DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1045899307(1) dated 23-Jul-2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. The Assessee has raised the following grounds

of appeal:

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of

1

ITA 3831/MUM/2026 M D RUPAREL AND SONS

2. At the very outset, I noticed that there is a delay of approximately 547 days in filing the appeal before me. Considering the entire factual position as explained before me and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [1987 AIR 1353 (SC)], wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities of a non-deliberate delay, substantial justice is to be preferred, I am of the view that the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee, who has justifiably and properly explained the delay that occurred in filing the appeal, and construing the expression “sufficient cause” liberally, I am

2

ITA 3831/MUM/2026 M D RUPAREL AND SONS

inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before me. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

3. From the records, I also noticed that the assessee was proceeded ex parte before the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, considering

the documents placed on record, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

4. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee could not effectively represent his case before the Revenue Authorities, I am of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before the AO. Accordingly, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to set aside the order passed by the AO and restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. A copy of the receipt shall be placed on record before the AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain

cooperative during the course of the proceedings.

5. Before parting, I wish to make it clear that my decision to restore the matter to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as reflecting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which shall be

adjudicated independently by the AO in accordance with law.

6. Needless to mention, the AO shall provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on

3

ITA 3831/MUM/2026 M D RUPAREL AND SONS

frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings.

7. In the result, the appeal