2026 (3) TMI 775
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax (Appeals), Mumbai ["CIT(A)" for short]. (B) In this case, assessee's returned income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act whereby adjustment was made, making addition to the returned income. The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 24.06.2024 whereby the assessee's appeal was not admitted on limitation ground. The assessee's appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case, as the delay in filing of the appeal was not condoned u/s. 249(3) of the Act by the learned CIT(A). Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 24.06.2024 of ITA No. 516/Lkw/2024. The grounds of appeal are as under: "1 That ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without acknowledging that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time. The delay was not due to dilatory tactics, lack of bona fide, deliberate inaction, or negligence on the part of the appellant, who always acted diligently and remained active. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, failing to recognize that the term "Sufficient Cause" for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. 8 That any other relief or reliefs as your honour may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be accepted as a reasonable cause for delay in condonation of filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A), the learned AR for the assessee submitted. The learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) should be directed to decide assessee's appeal on merits after condoning delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A). For this purpose, he relied on the aforesaid decided precedents in the cases of: 1. Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020[suomoto] No. 3 of 2020. 2. Subhash Malik vs. CIT, Meerut [2010] 187 taxman 88 (Alld) 3. Cheminor Drugs Ltd. vs. DCIT, Hyderabad [2007] 105 ITD 613 (Hyd). 4. Prominent Builders & Investors (P) Ltd. vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissi....
TaxTMI