RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. AC, CIRCLE 2(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3889/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 August 2026AY 2021-2210 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without properly considering the assessee's explanation and contemporaneous evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a delay, claiming the CIT(A) order was not properly served. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay in filing. The assessee argued that the assessment order was not made available promptly, leading to the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation without considering the assessee's explanation for the delay and the circumstances surrounding the service of the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250,Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal
For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Londhe – SR DR
Pronounced: 10/08/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 3889/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22

Ravinder Kumar Jain, B-303, AC, Circle 2(2)(1), Aayakar Bakhtawar, Shahid Bhagat Bhawan, Mumbai – 400020. Singh Road, Colaba Mumbai - Vs. 400005. PAN NO. AAKPJ 9850 F Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri K. Gopal Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Londhe – SR DR.

: 06/08/2026 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 10/08/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 04/12/2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short, the learned CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2021-22, raising following grounds:

“I. Violation of Principles of natural Justice 1. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order dated 04.72.2025 under section 250 of the lncome tax Act, 1961, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, by failing to provide the Appellant an effective and reasonable opportunity of being heard and

Ravinder Kumar Jain 2 ITA No. 3889/MUM/2026

by dismissing the appeal without considering and adjudicating the grounds on merits; hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the matter restored for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. II. Non-service of Assessment Order - Violation of Section 144B 2. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in passing the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 1448 dated 19.12.2022, which was not duly served upon the assessee. ln the absence of proper service, the assessee had bona fide reasons to believe that no order had been passed within the prescribed time limit. The failure to effect valid service amounts to a violation of the mandatory provisions of section 144B(1)(xxiii) and section 144B6(ii)(a) of the Income -tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, due to such noncompliance with the prescribed faceless assessment procedure, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. III. Assessment Order Passed Beyond Limitation 3. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred both in law and on facts in passing the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 1448 of the lncome- tax Act, 1961, dated 19.12.2022, which was not duly served upon the Appellant. ln the absence of proper and valid service of the assessment order, the Appellant had bona fide reasons to believe that no order had been passed within the prescribed time limit. It is submitted that mere passing of an order without valid service does not meet the requirement of law, and consequently, the impugned assessment order is liable to be treated as not having been passed within the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment order is barred by limitation, void ab initio, bad in law, and liable to be quashed. Grounds on Merits Addition of Rs. 28,73,138 of long -term capital gains by disallowing cost of acquisition and cost of improvement 4. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.28,73,738/- while computing long-term capital gains on sale of the flat by wrongly disregarding the cost of acquisition, which included housing loan interest, and the cost of improvement, which included renovation and interior expenses, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence on record. Addition of Rs. 91,645/- on account of erroneous adoption of cost of acquisition contrary to section 55(2xac) 5. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 91,645/- by not considering the actual cost of acquisition in accordance with section 55(2)(ac) and by erroneously adopting the figure of cost of acquisition as taken by the broker, without any legal basis.”

Ravinder Kumar Jain 3 ITA No. 3889/MUM/2026

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Referring to the affidavit filed by the assessee, it was submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and, at the relevant time, was travelling and consequently could not notice the order passed by the learned CIT(A). It was submitted that the order was subsequently traced by the assessee's tax consultant on the Income-tax Portal in the beginning of March 2026, whereupon immediate steps were taken to prefer the present appeal. The learned counsel accordingly prayed that the delay of 40 days be condoned. For ready reference, the relevant part of the affidavit filed by the assessee is reproduced as under:-

“2. That, the assessment order was passed on 19.12.2022 under section 143(3) read with section l44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The total income was determined at Rs.99,29,043/- as against the returned income of Rs.69,64,260/-, thereby making an addition of Rs.29,64,783/-. 3. That, the said assessment order was served upon me on 24.05.2024 and I thereafter preferred an appeal before the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre on 04.06.2024. 4. That, during the course of the appellate proceedings I have made written submissions on 23)02024 and 24.11.2025. However, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre passed the impugned appellate order dated 04.12.2025 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances leading to the delay and without adjudicating the issues on merits. 5. That, at the time when the said order was passed and communicated via email, I was travelling and, due to such circumstances, was unable to regularly access and operate my email; consequently, the order dated 04.12.2025 could not be noticed by me. 6. That, subsequently, the said order was traced by my tax consultant on the Income Tax Portal in the beginning of March 2026. Thereafter, I immediately

Ravinder Kumar Jain 4 ITA No. 3889/MUM/2026

initiated steps to file an appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal and engaged a professional for the same. 7. That, the appeal against the same should have been filed on or before 28.02.2026. 8. That, there is a delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The said delay has occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances and not on account of any negligence or deliberate inaction on my part. 9. That, if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, I shall suffer grave prejudice, hardship and irreparable loss, whereas no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. l0. That, this Affidavit is made bona fide in support of the application for condonation of delay, and I respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 40 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.”

3.

The relevant facts stated in the affidavit are that the assessment was completed on 19.12.2022 under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.99,29,043/- as against the returned income of Rs.69,64,260/-. The assessee states that the assessment order was ultimately served upon him on 24.05.2024, whereafter an appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A) on 04.06.2024. It is further stated that written submissions were filed before the NFAC during the appellate proceedings. The assessee has explained that, when the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 04.12.2025 was passed and communicated through e-mail, he was travelling and was unable to regularly access his e-mail. The order was subsequently traced by his tax consultant on the Income-tax Portal in the beginning of March 2026, following which the present appeal was filed. The assessee

Ravinder Kumar Jain 5 ITA No. 3889/MUM/2026

has accordingly attributed the delay of 40 days to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances and has asserted that there was neither deliberate inaction nor negligence on his part.

4.

Having considered the explanation furnished by the assessee and the circumstances stated in the affidavit, we are satisfied that the delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal has been satisfactorily explained. The assessee is a senior citizen and has stated, with supporting circumstances, that he was travelling when the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) was passed and communicated. The subsequent conduct of the assessee in taking steps to institute the appeal immediately after the order was traced also lends support to the explanation furnished. We, therefore, find sufficient cause for the delay and accordingly condone the same and admit the appeal for adjudication.

5.

We now turn to the grievance of the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A). The learned counsel submitted that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that it was filed with a delay of 351 days and had consequently declined to examine the issues raised on merits. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) are reproduced below:

“6. Thus, it is trite in law that the appellant must show that he was diligent in taking proper steps and the delay was caused notwithstanding his due diligence. It is for the appellant to explain the reason for the delay and it is not the function of authorities to find the cause for delay. The Appellate authority has to examine whether the sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay and whether such cause is acceptable or not. Even though substantial

Ravinder Kumar Jain 6 ITA No. 3889/MUM/2026

justice should not be defeated by technicalities but that does not mean that any plea without any possible or acceptable basis and even without bearing, semblance or rationality has to be accepted and delay has to be accepted and condoned which shall be against the very spirit of law. The time prescribed for filing the appeal will become meaningless in such an event. Merely because substantial justice is to be done law of limitation cannot be ignored and that also when there is no sufficient and reasonable cause for such inordinate delay. 6.1 The appellant, in the present situation, appears to be guilty of negligence and does not take appropriate steps to peruse the remedy till about 351 days and thus does not take appropriate action in filing the appeal within the prescribed time. In the light of the above discussion and considering the facts and position of the law on this issue, I find that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal by the appellant and thus condonation of delay is hereby rejected. 6.2 Since the appeal is being dismissed on account of being filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act, therefore, I am not expressing any opinion on merit of the case.” 6. Before us, the learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid conclusion of the learned CIT(A) proceeded on an incorrect factual premise, namely, that the assessee had remained inactive for 351 days after the assessment order. In support of the contention that the assessment order was not made available to the assessee immediately upon completion of the assessment, the learned counsel drew our attention to pages 19 to 26 of the paper book, containing copies of grievances lodged by the assessee on the Income-tax Portal.

7.

The material placed before us shows that the assessment order was passed on 19.12.2022 and that the assessee lodged his first grievance on the Income-tax Portal as early as 23.12.2022, specifically stating that the assessment order had not been uploaded/made available on the Portal. The grievance was followed

Ravinder Kumar Jain 7 ITA No. 3889/MUM/2026

by further complaints on 09.01.2023, 27.01.2023, 08.02.2023, 20.02.2023, 22.02.2023, 06.04.2023 and 20.09.2023. The assessee has further placed on record that a copy of the assessment order was ultimately received by e-mail only on 24.05.2024, whereafter the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was filed on 04.06.2024.

8.

The aforesaid contemporaneous conduct of the assessee assumes considerable significance. The grievances were not raised retrospectively after the commencement of appellate proceedings; rather, the first grievance was lodged within a few days of the date on which the assessment order was purportedly passed and was followed by repeated requests over the succeeding months. Such conduct is difficult to reconcile with the conclusion that the assessee had simply remained inactive or had deliberately allowed the prescribed period of limitation to expire.

9.

In these circumstances, the learned CIT(A), while considering the application for condonation of delay, ought to have examined the contemporaneous material placed by the assessee regarding non-availability of the assessment order and the repeated efforts made by him to obtain a copy thereof. The finding that the assessee was negligent and had taken no steps for 351 days does not appear to take into account the material placed on record demonstrating that the assessee had, in fact, been pursuing the matter from shortly after the date of the assessment order.

Ravinder Kumar Jain 8 ITA No. 3889/MUM/2026

10.

We are also of the view that the question of limitation cannot be determined merely by mechanically reckoning the period from the date borne on the assessment order, without examining the statutory requirement relating to service/communication of the order and the contemporaneous evidence placed by the assessee regarding the date on which the order was actually received or made available to him. In the present case, the material produced by the assessee indicates that the assessment order was received by him only on 24.05.2024, and the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was filed on 04.06.2024.

11.

The explanation furnished by the assessee is thus supported by contemporaneous conduct and documentary material. In such circumstances, the delay ought not to have been viewed in isolation by mechanically treating the entire period from 19.12.2022 as unexplained inaction. The learned CIT(A) was required to consider whether, on the facts established by the assessee, the statutory period for filing the appeal had in fact commenced earlier and, if so, whether sufficient cause existed for the intervening period. That exercise has not been undertaken in the proper factual perspective.

12.

In view of the foregoing, we are unable to sustain the order of the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.

Ravinder Kumar Jain 9 ITA No. 3889/MUM/2026

13.

The learned CIT(A) shall first determine the issue relating to limitation in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the material placed on record by the assessee regarding the date of service/communication of the assessment order and the circumstances leading to the filing of the appeal. If, upon such examination, the appeal is found to be within limitation, or the delay, if any, is found to be satisfactorily explained, the learned CIT(A) shall thereafter adjudicate all the grounds raised by the assessee on merits in accordance with law. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard.

14.

We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the assessee's challenge to the assessment, including the grounds relating to service of the assessment order, limitation of the assessment, computation of long-term capital gains, cost of acquisition and cost of improvement. All such issues are left open for consideration by the learned CIT(A).

15.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ravinder Kumar Jain 10 ITA No. 3889/MUM/2026

Mumbai; Dated: 10/08/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1.

The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →