SANDEEP MADHUSUDAN PATIL,MUMBAI vs. JURISDICTIONAL AO CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1943/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 August 2026AY 2013-1420 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay as the assessee had not shown sufficient cause. Pendency or subsequent outcome of proceedings in another case does not extend the statutory time limit for filing an appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee received Rs. 60,00,000/- as a One Time Benefit (OTB) from BCCI, which was voluntarily offered to tax. The assessee later filed a belated appeal before the CIT(A) seeking condonation of delay, citing the outcome of litigation regarding BCCI's registration under Section 12A.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained to warrant condonation, and whether the OTB received from BCCI was taxable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 56,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: HON’BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, AR
For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, CIT DR
Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant

P a g e | 20 ITA No. 1943/Mum/2026 A.Y. 2013-14 Sandeep Madhusudan Patil 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, 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 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →