What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed within the extended limitation period specified by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the dismissal by the CIT(Appeals) solely on the ground of delay was incorrect.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) for being filed late. The assessee contended that the appeal was filed within the extended time limit as per CBDT Circular No. 20/2016.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit considering the CBDT circular, and if not, whether the delay should be condoned.

Neumec & Suchit Associates vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI JAGADISH

Pronounced: 16.09.2026

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)/ NFAC vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1083247742(1) dated 03.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed late. However, the appeal was filed on time as per circular no. 20/2016 issued by CBDT. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 2,32,56,000/- on account of alleged closing stock, which was never in existence during the course of survey, admittedly by estimating the value of closing stock, which is quite arbitrary, illegal and wholly unjustified. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 36,00,000/- on account of alleged sale of parking space which was never sold by the assessee and admitted during the course of survey, which was taken under force, threat and coercion. Further the same was neither discussed during the assessment proceeding nor any show cause notices was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer before making additions, which is quite arbitrary, illegal and wholly unjustified. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs. 13,94,000/- of Brokerage Expenditure which is related to the business of the assessee, which is quite arbitrary, illegal and wholly unjustified. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned A.O. erred in disallowing Rs. 1,31,873/- of interest, which is related to the business of the assessee, which is quite arbitrary, illegal and wholly unjustified. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs. 31,000/- as donation, which is a part of an advertisement and related to the business of the assessee and not a charity. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- on account of alleged admitted during the course of survey, which was taken under force, threat and coercion. Further the same was neither discussed during the assessment proceeding nor any show cause notice was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer before making additions, which is quite arbitrary, illegal and wholly unjustified. 8) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/OR delete any of the above grounds of appeal at OR before the time of hearing.

At the outset, we notice that the only effective ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the same was filed late.

In this regard, we have heard the counsel for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us, and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we notice that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that despite service of the assessment order on 02.04.2016, the appeal of the assessee was filed only on 14.06.2016, which was beyond the statutory limitation period of 30 days. In this regard, it was also noted that no application seeking condonation of delay was filed; thus, according to the learned CIT(A), the appeal was liable to be dismissed as time-barred.

From the records, we further noticed that the assessee has relied upon Circular No. 20/2016, wherein the time limit for filing e-appeals was extended from 15.05.2016 up to 15.06.2016.

Since, admittedly, the said appeal was filed by the assessee before 15.06.2016, in terms of Circular No. 20/2016, the appeal filed by the assessee was well within time. Thus, it ought not to have been dismissed by the learned CIT(A) on this consideration alone.

Since the appeal of the assessee was filed within the extended limitation period, was dismissed solely as time-barred, and the merits of the grounds raised were not adjudicated, the Bench is of the considered view that the matter needs to be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for decision on merits.

Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

Before parting, we want to make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 16.09.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: NEUMEC & SUCHIT ASSOCIATES, G-3, NATWAR CHAMBERS,94, NAGINDAS MASTER ROAD, OAK LANE MUMBAI- 1 400023, MUMBAI-400021, MAHARASHTRA

ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), KB-249, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, 2 MUMBAI-400051, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA

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

NEUMEC & SUCHIT ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN,MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments