SURESHKUMAR K. VISHWAKARMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 32(1)(1), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dated 16.10.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION 1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order u/s. 250 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] framed and passed on 16.10.2024 by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ['Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions of the Act and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law. 1.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the appellate order so passed is bad in law, illegal and void as the same is arbitrary and perverse. 2. EX-PARTE ORDER 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex - parte.

Sureshkumar K. Vishwakarma ITA No. 2856/M/2026 (AY: 2010-11) 2.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the non - attendance / non - reply was for the reasons not attributable to the Appellant / beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate or intentional; and

2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for.

WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE

3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not condoning the delay.

3.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that –

(i) the manual appeal was filed by the Appellant within the statutory period of limitation, which appeal was dismissed on 28.12.2017;

(ii) the delay in e - filing appeal thereafter was on account of the fatal health condition of the tax consultant of the Appellant.

3.3 The Ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that the delay, if any, in filing the appeal was not attributable to the Appellant / beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate or intentional.

3.4 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for.

WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE

4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant in limine.

4.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for.

WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE

Sureshkumar K. Vishwakarma ITA No. 2856/M/2026 (AY: 2010-11) 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in initiating the reassessment proceeding and framing the assessment of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of section 147 r.w.s. 148A r.w.s. 148 of the Act.

4.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that:

(i) The case of the Appellant did not fall within the parameters laid down by section 147 r.w.s. 148A, 148, 149 & 151 of the Act;

(ii) The necessary preconditions for initiating the reassessment proceeding and completion thereof were not satisfied.

4.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the reassessment framed was bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction.

WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 5. ADDITION OF RS. 23,80,642/- AS ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in making disallowance of the amount of Rs. 23,80,642/- as alleged bogus purchases, being 25% of the purchases of Rs. 95,22,569/- from the alleged hawala parties, 5.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in –

(i) Basing his action only on surmises, suspicion and conjecture; (ii) Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations; and (iii) Ignoring relevant material and considerations as submitted by the Appellant. 5.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such 5.4 addition was called for.

5.4 Without prejudice to the above, in the alternative, assuming - but not admitting - that some addition was called for, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the computation of the addition made by the A.O. was arbitrary, excessive and not in accordance with the law.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any the above ground at the time of hearing.

Sureshkumar K. Vishwakarma ITA No. 2856/M/2026 (AY: 2010-11)

Sureshkumar K. Vishwakarma ITA No. 2856/M/2026 (AY: 2010-11) assessee. The assessee is lay man and not well versed with the e-gadgets. The delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was either for technical reasons or further due to the medical condition of his consultant. The order of the learned CIT(A) was not served upon the assessee. The assessee realized about the dismissal of the appeal only when notice under Section 226(3) was served upon the bank for freezing the bank account of the assessee. When the assessee visited his bank, he was informed that his account had already been attached, and a copy of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 226(3) was handed over to the assessee by his banker on 06.02.2026. The assessee thereafter filed the present appeal. Though there is no delay from the date of realizing the dismissal of the appeal by the learned CIT(A), yet the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with his detailed affidavit. The assessee has also filed copies detailed medical prescriptions of his consultants with documentary evidence for explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned AR of the assessee submits that the delay in filing the appeal either before the learned CIT(A) or again before the Tribunal is not intentional. Substantial rights of the assessee are infringed. The learned CIT(A) has not considered the appeal of the assessee on merits and it was dismissed as unadmitted. The learned AR of the assessee submits that he has filed his short synopsis narrating various case laws on the issue of delay. The learned AR of the assessee submits that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and further before the Tribunal may be 5

Sureshkumar K. Vishwakarma ITA No. 2856/M/2026 (AY: 2010-11) condoned and the matter may be restored back to the office of the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal on merits. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that the assessee was not attentive in taking steps for filing the appeal either before the learned CIT(A) or again before the Tribunal. The assessee has not properly explained the delay. The assessee is a beneficiary of bogus purchase shown from traders who were indulging in providing accommodation entries. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on the short-written submission and various case laws relied upon by the assessee in his written submission. We find that the learned AR of the assessee, in his submission, made a twofold submission: firstly, to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), and secondly, for condoning delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. For the delay in filing the appeal, the learned AR of the assessee vehemently argued that initially the first appeal against the addition in the assessment order is filed physically, which was dismissed for technical reasons. The assessee again filed the appeal electronically. We find that before us, the learned AR of the assessee filed a copy of the order dated 28.12.2017 dismissing the appeal of the assessee for the technical reason that such appeal should have been filed electronically as per CBDT Notification dated 01.03.2016. We find that the assessment was completed on 26.02.2016 and the physical appeal was filed 6

Sureshkumar K. Vishwakarma ITA No. 2856/M/2026 (AY: 2010-11) on 04.04.2016. Thus, initially, the first appeal was filed within time. We find that the learned CIT(A), while dismissing the second appeal, which is filed electronically, has not taken cognizance of the order of his predecessor dismissing the appeal for technical reasons. No doubt, the assessee was required to file the appeal electronically immediately on receipt of the order on the physical appeal. There is a delay of about two years from the receipt of the order on the physical appeal. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee has filed an affidavit of the assessee along with a medical certificate and prescription of his consultant. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, that the assessee was dependent on his consultant who was hospitalised for substantial time, such facts are supported with the documentary evidence, thus, we find that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was not intentional and deserves to be condoned. Hence, the delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A) is condoned. 5. Now, adverting to the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, we find that there is a delay of 437 days in filing the appeal from the date of the second order of the learned CIT(A). The foremost plea of the learned AR of the assessee is that the order of the learned CIT(A) was not served and that he came to know about the same only when his bank account was attached. The assessee has filed his own affidavit along with a copy of the attachment order received through the banking official. Thus, considering the peculiar facts of the case, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is also condoned.We find that the learned CIT(A) has not decided the various 7

Sureshkumar K. Vishwakarma ITA No. 2856/M/2026 (AY: 2010-11) grounds of appeal on merits. Hence, we deem it appropriate to restore the file to the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal afresh and on merits. Needless to say, before passing the order, the learned CIT(A) shall allow a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance and responding to the notices of the learned CIT(A). With the aforesaid directions the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of ld CIT(A). In the result, the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 15/09/2026. /- /- Sd/- /- Sd/- Sd/-S Sd/- VIKRAM SINGH YADAV PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 15/09/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai