RAJESH NARENDRA MEWAWALLA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1567/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 October 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 503 days, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the PMNRF, considering the assessee's genuine reasons and the impact of COVID-19. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment to provide the assessee with due opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file their return of income for AY 2016-17, despite high-value transactions. A notice u/s 148 was issued, but no return was filed. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144, determining income based on unexplained cash credit and expenditure. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed, and the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 503 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and if so, the merits of the assessment in the absence of assessee's compliance before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151(2),Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 147,Section 144,Section 288A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI BEENA PILLAI & SMT.RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed
For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Hearing: 06.10.2025Pronounced: 28.10.2025

Date of Hearing 06.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 17.07.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

“The grounds mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another 1. The learned assessing officer erred in issuing a notice u/s 148 without obtaining appropriate sanction required u/s 151(2) of the income tax act and therefore notice itself is bad in law and concentrating the assessment thereof.

2. The learned assessing officer erred in reopening of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 vide notice dated 31.03.2021 without providing the copy of reasons recorded and only on the basis of non-filing of return of income.

3. The learned assessing officer erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,41,92,400/-u/s 69A of the income tax act.

4. The learned assessing officer erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 61,74,464/- u/s 69C of the income tax act. The Appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at/or before the time of hearing.”

3.

At the outset, it is noted that the appeal is delayed by 503 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay wherein it has been submitted that he was undergoing severe health issues due to which he could not respond to the notices or take timely necessary action and the problem was further complicated due to disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic after which he was under severe financial strain.

Further due to his lack of experience in handling tax matters, being an undergraduate, and lack of proper guidance from the consultant, the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed time. It has further been submitted that a search was conducted by the department in 2008 on the assessee’s premises and various assets had been seized.

Subsequently, he had to pay huge tax demand for securing the release of jewellery from the custody of the department which materialized after almost 14 years.

3.2 In view of above facts and circumstance, ld. AR has requested that the delay may be condoned being due to genuine and bonafide reasons. Ld. DR, on the other hand, has opposed the condonation of the inordinate delay which has not been properly explained with requisite supporting documentary evidences.

3.3 After considering the rival submissions and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the delay deserves to be condoned but subject to the payment of a cost by the assessee by way of depositing Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund ( PMNRF).

4.

On merits, brief facts are that the assessee had not filed its return for A.Y. 2016-17 though there had been several high value transactions during the year as per the information available on the Non-filer Monitoring system of the IT department. A notice u/s. 148 was issued on 21.03.2021, however, no return was filed by the assessee in response to this notice.

Subsequently, in the absence of any compliance, the assessment was completed vide order dated 28.02.2022 passed 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, determining the total income as under:

Salary Rs. 9,60,000/- Add: Unexplained cash credit u/s. 69A Rs. 241,92,400/- Add. Unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C Rs. 61,74,465/- Total Assessed Income Rs. 3,13,26,865/- Rounded off u/s. 288A Rs. 3,13,26,870/- 4.2 Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 17.07.2023, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal after holding that assessee did not make requisite compliance before the ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal after a delay of 503 days which has been condoned hereinbefore.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the information available on record. Since the assessee could not make any compliance before the ld. AO, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to ld. jurisdicational AO for denovo assessment after providing due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish proof of depositing cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the PMNRF before the ld. AO and also make requisite compliance on merits.

6.

The appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced in Open Court on 28.10.2025

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →