SANTOSH DESHMAL OSWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4891/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 July 2026AY 2016-20174 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine due to the unexplained delay and the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeals. However, liberty was granted to seek recall of the order by substantiating the reasons for delay and non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals with a significant delay, citing the unavailability of their Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal noted the lack of supporting evidence for the delay and the assessee's non-appearance for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned without substantiating evidence, and whether the appeal should be dismissed ex parte due to non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, SR. D.R. and Mr. Pravin Salunke
Hearing: 28.07.2026Pronounced: 29.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4889, 4890 and 4891/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 Santosh Deshmal Oswal, DCIT, Central Circle 7(2), 2nd, Floor, Flat no. 203, Mumbai, Rajendra Vihar, Cross Lane 12 Vs. Room no. 636, 6th Floor, Khetwadi, Mumbai, Maharashtra Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, - 400004. Mumbai, Maharashtra - PAN – AAAPO2421P 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC)”, MUMBAI ITA No. 4952 and 4953/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 and 2018-19 Santosh Deshmal Oswal, DCIT, Central Circle 7(2), 2nd, Floor, Flat no. 203, Mumbai, Rajendra Vihar, Cross Lane 12 Vs. Room no. 636, 6th Floor, Khetwadi, Mumbai, Maharashtra Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, - 400004. Mumbai, Maharashtra - PAN – AAAPO2421P 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Jayshree Thakur, SR. D.R. and Mr. Pravin Salunke Date of Hearing : 28.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

ITA No. 4889, 4890 and 4891/M/2026 2 ITA No. 4952 and 4953/M/2026 Santosh Deshmal Oswal

These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the common order dated 15.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for the A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2018-19.

2.

As the facts and issues involved in these appeals are identical, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity and by taking ITA No. 4889/Mum/2026 as the lead case, and the decision of the same shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining appeals.

3.

Coming to ITA No. 4889/Mum/2026, at the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 117 days in filing the instant appeal against the impugned order dated 15.10.2025, which arose from the assessment order dated 16.03.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, by which the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.3,33,746/-, being 0.5% of the alleged accommodation entries aggregating to Rs.6,67,49,164/- (Rs.6,54,36,730/- + Rs.13,12,434/-), which was affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner.

4.

The Assessee filed an application dated 17.04.2026 seeking condonation of the delay and stated as under:

” Respected Sir, Due to the non-availability of the Chartered Accountant during the relevant period, the appellant was unable to complete and file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The preparation and filing of the appeal required professional assistance, and in the absence of the Chartered Accountant, the process could not be completed in time.

ITA No. 4889, 4890 and 4891/M/2026 3 ITA No. 4952 and 4953/M/2026 Santosh Deshmal Oswal

Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.”

5.

Though the Assessee seeks condonation of the delay, however, it fails to substantiate the reasons stated in the application by producing any supporting or corroborative evidence. Further, the notice fixing the appeal for hearing today was sent to the Assessee through email; however, neither did anyone appear on behalf of the Assessee nor was any application seeking adjournment filed. Thus, in these circumstances, we are constrained to decide the Assessee’s appeal ex parte.

6.

As observed above, the Assessee fails to substantiate its claim for condonation of the delay by producing any supporting or corroborative evidence. Therefore, the Assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as unadmitted and in limine. Thus, the same is dismissed accordingly. However, liberty is granted to the Assessee to seek recall of this order by satisfactorily explaining and substantiating the reasons for the delay, as well as the non- appearance/non-prosecution of the appeal.

7.

Resultantly, the appeal under consideration is dismissed in limine with the liberty mentioned above.

8.

In view of our decision in ITA No. 4889/Mum/2026, the remaining appeals are also dismissed in limine, with the same liberty as granted above.

ITA No. 4889, 4890 and 4891/M/2026 4 ITA No. 4952 and 4953/M/2026 Santosh Deshmal Oswal

9.

In the result all appeals bearing nos. ITA No. 4890 and 4891/MUM/2026 and ITA No. 4952 and 4953/MUM/2026 stand dismissed with liberty as observed above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANKIT SWARNKAR) Private Secretary Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →