VIJAY KUMAR CHAWLA,ULHASNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, taking a lenient view due to the assessee's stated health issues and inability to represent the case earlier, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This opportunity is subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperating in the proceedings, with the AO to adjudicate independently on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17, challenging an order passed under section 250, was dismissed by the CIT(A) for delay, and the assessee was ex-parte before lower authorities due to claimed mental instability and a heart attack. Before the Tribunal, the assessee also challenged the validity of the notice issued under section 148.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) should be condoned due to the assessee's health issues, and the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
Date of Hearing 12.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.11.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 04.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17.
At the very outset, we noticed that the assessee was ex- parte before AO and even appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay. Now before us the assessee has raised the legal ground thereby challenging the validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act.
Vijay Kumar Chawla., Mumbai. 3. Whereas on the contrary ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue submitted that since the appeal of the assessee was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay therefore assessee cannot raise any legal ground at this stage which were not even raised before any of the authority below, more particularly without getting the delay condoned before Ld. CIT(A).
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the 4. issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A) and AO on account of the fact that assessee was suffering from mental un-stability and had suffered massive heart attack resulting into business loss. Even assessee could not connect with his chartered accountant and in this regard has filed a detailed affidavit to support its contention therefore taking a lenient view under the peculiar fact of the case the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before the revenue authorities. Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of AO denovo assessment by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited into Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee is at liberty to take any other or new grounds of appeal before AO which Vijay Kumar Chawla., Mumbai. shall be adjudicated by AO in accordance with law. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026