KETAN KALYANJI DEDHIYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-42(1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3761/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It further held that the notice issued for reopening the assessment under Section 148 was barred by limitation, making the consequential assessment void ab initio.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 145 days. The assessee explained the delay due to his father's serious medical illness and his own lack of familiarity with the IT portal and laws.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the notice for reopening the assessment was issued within the prescribed limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

Pronounced: 24/07/2026

PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 23.02.2026 for the assessment year 2015-16 in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the appeal is time barred by 145 days for which the assessee has furnished a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit and the doctor's prescription in support of the facts deposed in the affidavit. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that for the reasons explained in the affidavit and the petition, the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication.

3.

Heard rival submissions and perused the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and the averments made in the affidavit. The contents of the affidavit are as under:

“I, Ketan Kalyanji Dedhiya, having my place of residence situated at 310/262, Laxmi Niwas RSC Road, Sector 6, Charkop, Kandivali - West, Mumbai- 400067 do hereby declare on solemn affirmation as under :- 1.0 THAT, I am assessed to Income Tax under the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer, Ward- 42(1)(3), Mumbai on holding the PAN no. AEFPD9441K; 2.0 THAT, the assessment order pertaining to Assessment year 2015-16 had been passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) u/s.147 r.w.s 144B on 01/03/2024 and due date to file the 1 appeal was 31/03/2024. However, the 1st appeal has been filed on 23/08/2024, which is late by 145 days. The delay in filing of the 1st appeal had occurred under the bonafide reasons and compelling circumstances beyond my control, stated as under :- a) The assessment order was not served to me in physical manner and was only uploaded in the Income Tax Portal. Thus, I was not aware that the assessment order had been passed by Ld.AO on 01/03/2024. Thereafter, upon receipt of the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) on 08/08/2024, I was made aware that Ld. AO had passed the assessment order and accordingly, immediately filed the 1 appeal with a prayer for condonation of delay; 2 I was extremely disturbed in attending the serious medical illness of my father Shri. Kalyanji Velji Dedhiya, who is aged 75 years, was suffering from respiratory disorder and uncontrolled hypertension (medical certificate enclosed) and was bed-ridden for over 2-3 months, i.e during the period when the 1 appeal was to be filed. Thereafter, I had gone to my hometown situated at Mundra, Kutch, Gujarat to attend the medical illness of my father and his betterment. The serious medical illness of my father and my non- availability in Mumbai had precluded me to file the 1 appeal in time; c) I am an undergraduate and am not conversant with computer system and Income Tax laws and do not have competent staffs to peruse the Income Tax portal. Also, my regular Chartered Accountant deserted me and did not inform me about the assessment order and accordingly, I could not file the 1st appeal in time. There is no wilful attempt nor any gross negligence of the appellant to delay the filing of the appeal, however the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT-(A) had occurred unintentionally under the bonafide reasons as stated herein above. A humble prayer is made to adopt a liberal approach and condone the delay of 145 days in filing of the appeal. Solemnly declared and affirmed at Mumbai on this 17 day of June, 2026.” 4. After going through the facts stated in the affidavit and the supporting medical records furnished before us, we find that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal with a delay of 145 days. Thus, the same is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

5.

Coming to the merits of the appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment year involved in the present case is assessment year 2015-16 and the notice issued for reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.04.2022 is barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the contention:

1.

Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. ITO, 179 Taxmann.com 433 (Bom-HC) 2. Mitra Biswas vs. ITO, 183 Taxmann.com 161 (Bom-HC) 3. Shree Cement Ltd vs. ACIT, 177 Taxmann.com 538 (Rajasthan-HC) 4. Manju Somani vs. ITO, 165 Taxmann.com 675 (Del-HC) 5. Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT, Writ Petition No.25121 of 2024 (Telangana-HC) dated 17.11.2025 6. Babu Hasan Shaikh vs. ITO ITA No.926/Mum/2025, dated 28.04.2025 7. Swami Vivekanand College vs. ITO ITA No.6628/Mum/2025, dated 05.01.2026 8. Ameya Balkrishna Kulkarni vs. ITO ITA No.4523/Mum/2024, dated 06.03.2025 9. Ramesh Dandumal Chachlani vs. ITO ITA No.4874/Mum/2024, dated 03.04.2025 The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble 6. Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. ITO as reported in (2025) 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that where the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 on 05.04.2022, since the Revenue had categorically made a concession before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), that for the assessment year 2015- 16 it would drop all notices issued u/s 148 after 01.04.2021, the impugned notice dated 05.04.2022 and all consequential orders/proceedings would not survive.

7.

The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case. The notice issued u/s 148 in the case of the assessee was issued on 19.04.2022 for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16. Since the notice issued u/s 148 dated 19.04.2022 is barred by limitation, the consequential assessment framed pursuant to the said notice is void ab initio and accordingly the same is hereby quashed. Grounds No. 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal are allowed.

9.

As we have held that assessment itself is void ab initio the other grounds raised by the Assessee need not be adjudicated.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2026

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 24/07/2026 Prabhat Copy to: KETAN KALYANJI DEDHIYA, 310/262, LAXMI NIWAS RSC ROAD, SECTOR 6, CHARKOP, KANDIVALI 1 (WEST), MUMBAI-400067, MAHARASHTRA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-42(1)(3), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA 2 COMPLEX, BANDRA(EAST), MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →