GAURAV RAMJI GEDIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-42(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3876/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 August 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to file a proper application for condonation of delay with an affidavit.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 176 days. The assessee, appearing in person, explained they were unaware of the procedural requirement for a condonation application and affidavit. The ITAT considered this explanation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, whether the substantive grounds of appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 147,Section 144,Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 69A,Section 194C,Section 12A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271F,Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Ramji Gedia, Shri Rajgopal Parthasarathi– SR DR
Hearing: 20/08/2026

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, "the Ld. CIT(A)"] for assessment year 2016-17, raising following grounds:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 15.01.2026 confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147

ITA 3876/MUM/2026 2 Gaurav Ramji Gedia

r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 15.03.2024 which is bad and invalid in 44B of the Act dated 15.03.2024 which is bad and invalid in 44B of the Act dated 15.03.2024 which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that reopening The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that reopening The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that reopening of assessment by way of issuance of the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, issuance of of assessment by way of issuance of the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, issuance of of assessment by way of issuance of the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and passing the reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act of the Act and passing the reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act of the Act and passing the reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act is invalid and bad in the eyes of law. is invalid and bad in the eyes of law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the Ld. AO The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the Ld. AO The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the Ld. AO has passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice. has passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice. has passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition made The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition made The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition made towards purchase of immovable property of Rs. 1,61,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act towards purchase of immovable property of Rs. 1,61,00,000/ towards purchase of immovable property of Rs. 1,61,00,000/ which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law. which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of long confirming the addition of long- term capital gains on the sale of immovable property amounting to Rs. term capital gains on the sale of immovable property amounting to Rs. term capital gains on the sale of immovable property amounting to Rs. 24,60,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. u/s 69A of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of 8% of The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of 8% of The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of 8% of the profit of Rs. 23,18,468/ the profit of Rs. 23,18,468/- on receipts of Rs. 2,89,80,854/ pts of Rs. 2,89,80,854/- on which TDS is deducted u/s 194C of the Act which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law. deducted u/s 194C of the Act which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law. deducted u/s 194C of the Act which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of interest income received from the Housing Development Finance Corporation of interest income received from the Housing Development Finance interest income received from the Housing Development Finance Rs. 12,521/- u/s 69A of the Act. u/s 69A of the Act. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the assessment The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the assessment The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act on best judgment basis which is bad and invalid order passed u/s 144 of the Act on best judgment basis which is bad and invalid order passed u/s 144 of the Act on best judgment basis which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in charging interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act. AO in charging interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty pro AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. ceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and / or delete in all the The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and / or delete in all the The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and / or delete in all the foregoing grounds of appeal. foregoing grounds of appeal.

ITA 3876/MUM/2026 3 Gaurav Ramji Gedia

2.

At the outset, we note that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the At the outset, we note that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the At the outset, we note that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay of appeal in limine on the ground of delay of 176 days in its filing. The learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee had neither filed an learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee had neither filed an learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee had neither filed an application seeking condonation of delay nor furnished an affidavit application seeking condonation of delay nor furnished an affidavit application seeking condonation of delay nor furnished an affidavit explaining explaining explaining the the the circumstances circumstances circumstances leading leading leading to to to such such such delay delay delay and, and, and, consequently, held that no “sufficient cause” w consequently, held that no “sufficient cause” within the meaning of ithin the meaning of section 249(3) of the Income section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] had tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] had been established. The learned CIT(A) referred to the various been established. The learned CIT(A) referred to the various been established. The learned CIT(A) referred to the various decisions and held the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable , decisions and held the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable , decisions and held the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable , accordingly, declined to entertain th accordingly, declined to entertain the appeal on merits, e appeal on merits, observing as under:

“6. Decisions: The appellant has not been able to justify inordinate delay in The appellant has not been able to justify inordinate delay in The appellant has not been able to justify inordinate delay in filing appeal, as has been discussed above. In view of the above detailed filing appeal, as has been discussed above. In view of the above detailed filing appeal, as has been discussed above. In view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no “sufficient cause” in terms of discussion, it is held that the appellant has no “sufficient discussion, it is held that the appellant has no “sufficient Section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed Section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed Section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of suffic a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of suffic sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal filed is not in dering the above discussion and facts, the appeal filed is not in dering the above discussion and facts, the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, and there is no e provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, and there is no e provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, the present sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, appeal is dismissed as not maintainable appeal is dismissed as not maintainable without any discussion on merits or any discussion on merits or on any other aspect.” on any other aspect. 3. Before us, the as Before us, the assessee appeared in person and submitted sessee appeared in person and submitted that he was not conversant with the procedural requirement of that he was not conversant with the procedural requirement of that he was not conversant with the procedural requirement of filing a separate application for condonation of delay along with an filing a separate application for condonation of delay along with an filing a separate application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and, being unassisted by a qualified professional, could not affidavit and, being unassisted by a qualified professional, could not affidavit and, being unassisted by a qualified professional, could not comply with the same. He submitted that an opportunity may be e same. He submitted that an opportunity may be e same. He submitted that an opportunity may be

ITA 3876/MUM/2026 4 Gaurav Ramji Gedia

granted to place on record an application and affidavit explaining granted to place on record an application and affidavit explaining granted to place on record an application and affidavit explaining the delay.

4.

We have considered the submissions and perused the material We have considered the submissions and perused the material We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. The appeal before the learned CIT(A) was available on record. The appeal before the learned available on record. The appeal before the learned dismissed solely on the ground of limitation and, consequently, dismissed solely on the ground of limitation and, consequently, dismissed solely on the ground of limitation and, consequently, none of the substantive grounds raised by the assessee has been none of the substantive grounds raised by the assessee has been none of the substantive grounds raised by the assessee has been examined on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, examined on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, examined on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly having regard to the explanation now offered by the and particularly having regard to the explanation now offered by and particularly having regard to the explanation now offered by assessee, we are of the view that the interest of substantial justice assessee, we are of the view that the interest of substantial justice assessee, we are of the view that the interest of substantial justice would be served by providing an opportunity to the assessee to would be served by providing an opportunity to the assessee to would be served by providing an opportunity to the assessee to place on record a proper application for condonation of delay place on record a proper application for condonation of delay place on record a proper application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. supported by an affidavit.

5.

We, therefore, set aside We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the assessee's application for condonation of the delay of 176 days, in assessee's application for condonation of the delay of 176 days, in assessee's application for condonation of the delay of 176 days, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. If the delay is condoned, the learned CIT(A) shall thereafter e delay is condoned, the learned CIT(A) shall thereafter e delay is condoned, the learned CIT(A) shall thereafter adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits in adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits in adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have expressed no accordance with law. We make it clear that we have expressed no accordance with law. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on either the sufficiency of the cause pleaded for the delay opinion on either the sufficiency of the cause pleaded for the delay opinion on either the sufficiency of the cause pleaded for the delay or the merits of the grounds raised in the appeal. The assessee is merits of the grounds raised in the appeal. The assessee is merits of the grounds raised in the appeal. The assessee is also expected to diligently comply with the notices and proceedings also expected to diligently comply with the notices and proceedings also expected to diligently comply with the notices and proceedings before the learned CIT(A). before the learned CIT(A).

ITA 3876/MUM/2026 5 Gaurav Ramji Gedia

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 20/ /08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH PAWAN SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 20/08/2026 /2026 Kunal Kr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, 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 →