AUM INFRATEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 4.1.2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5173/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 August 2026AY 2013-20145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a technicality without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee a hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred due to a perceived delay in filing. The CIT(A) noted the assessment order was served on March 31, 2016, and the appeal was filed on April 1, 2019, which was considered significantly delayed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without providing an opportunity for hearing, and whether the appeal was indeed filed within the prescribed time limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 249(2),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Savant,(Sr. AR)
Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT,

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 5173/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 AUM Infratex Private Limited Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अतधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →