MANOJ PANDURANG MORE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an effective opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay before deciding the condonation application. The impugned orders were set aside for lack of sufficient opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed due to delay in filing. The assessee contended that no effective opportunity was given to explain the delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals without affording an effective opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the different orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] both dated 29.01.2026, for the assessment years 2017-18 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act and penalty order passed u/s 270A of the Act.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals on the ground of delay in filing the appeals. It was contended that no effective opportunity was afforded to the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay before rejecting the applications for condonation of delay. It was therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice, both the appeals may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On a careful reading of the impugned orders, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeals. However, from the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), it is not discernible that any effective opportunity was afforded to the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay before deciding the issue of condonation. The question whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed period ought to have been considered only after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.
In our considered opinion, the issue relating to condonation of delay has to be decided in accordance with law after considering the explanation of the assessee and the material if any placed on record in support thereof. Since the impugned orders have been passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay, the same cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals and restore the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to afford sufficient and effective opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeals and to decide the applications for condonation of delay afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. In the event the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the appeals on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2026
Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 29/07/2026 Prabhat Copy to: MANOJ PANDURANG MORE, ROOM NO. 6, SHREERAM NIWAS CHAWL BHATWADI, GHATKOPAR(W), MUMBAI 1 400084, MUMBAI-400084, MAHARASHTRA ITO WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN (INCOME TAX OFFICE), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX 2 (BKC), NEAR VIDESH BHAVAN, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400051, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shaista Praween vs. The Assistant Commissoner Of GST And Central Excise, RourkelaOrissa · 6 Nov 2026
- Paonta Hp Centre vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026
- M/S Multitech Agro INDIA (Opc) PVT LTD vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 5 Nov 2026
- Gopa Satya Madhava Subbarao vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026
- M/S Kallu Cable vs. The Commissioner State Goods And Service TaxUttarakhand · 5 Nov 2026