SAMPATLAL SOHANLAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(3)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 558/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 April 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide. It held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues on merits rather than dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay due to issues with a tax consultant. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without a substantive adjudication on the merits. The assessee sought restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the merits, and whether the notice under Section 148 was time-barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Shri. Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr.)
Pronounced: 20/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 558/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Sampatlal Sohanlal Jain Vs. ITO Ward 34 (3)(5), Mumbai C-104, Narayan Nagar, 1st Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai. Floor, 49-Hanuman Nagar, 1st Floor, Vile Parle (East) Mumbai 400057. PAN NO. AJIPJ1807F Assessee Respondent

: Shri. Haridas Bhat Assessee by : Shri. Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr.) Revenue by (Virtually Appear) : 09/04/2026 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 20/04/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ‘the ld. CIT(A)’], for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, The CIT(A) erred in confirming the Assessment with addition of Rs 49,89,970/- unexplained cash deposits from undisclosed sources and added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA No. ITA No. 558/Mum/2026 Sampatlal Sohanlal Jain Sampatlal Sohanlal Jain 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) failed 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) failed 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: a. The notice U/s 148 of the Act issued on 31/7/2022, for an addition of a. The notice U/s 148 of the Act issued on 31/7/2022, for an addition of a. The notice U/s 148 of the Act issued on 31/7/2022, for an addition of less than Rs.50 lacs, was barred by time and thus invalid. less than Rs.50 lacs, was barred by time and thus invalid. less than Rs.50 lacs, was barred by time and thus invalid. b. The Assessment order was passed in undue haste without giving proper b. The Assessment order was passed in undue haste without giving proper b. The Assessment order was passed in undue haste without giving proper opportunity. c. The cash deposited was only Rs.27,08,555 (2408555+300000) reported c. The cash deposited was only Rs.27,08,555 (2408555+300000) reported c. The cash deposited was only Rs.27,08,555 (2408555+300000) reported in 26AS whereas the addition made is Rs. 49,89,970/ in 26AS whereas the addition made is Rs. 49,89,970/-. d. The Assessee has a retail counter, and d. The Assessee has a retail counter, and regularly deposits cash in bank, regularly deposits cash in bank, which are properly recorded, and the books of accounts are audited. which are properly recorded, and the books of accounts are audited. which are properly recorded, and the books of accounts are audited. 3. The appellant therefore prays that addition of Rs. 49,89,970/-as 3. The appellant therefore prays that addition of Rs. 49,89,970/ 3. The appellant therefore prays that addition of Rs. 49,89,970/ unexplained money U/s 69A, which is bad at law, please be deleted. unexplained money U/s 69A, which is bad at law, please be deleted unexplained money U/s 69A, which is bad at law, please be deleted

2.

At the outset, i At the outset, it is observed that the present appeal is filed t is observed that the present appeal is filed with a delay of 313 days. The Learned Counsel for the assessee has with a delay of 313 days. The Learned Counsel for the assessee has with a delay of 313 days. The Learned Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the affidavit filed in support of the drawn our attention to the affidavit filed in support of the drawn our attention to the affidavit filed in support of the condonation application, wherein it has been stated that upon condonation application, wherein it has been stated that upon condonation application, wherein it has been stated that upon receipt of the assessment order, the matter was entrusted to a tax ssment order, the matter was entrusted to a tax ssment order, the matter was entrusted to a tax consultant for filing the appeal. However, due to inaction and lack consultant for filing the appeal. However, due to inaction and lack consultant for filing the appeal. However, due to inaction and lack of effective representation by the said consultant, no proper of effective representation by the said consultant, no proper of effective representation by the said consultant, no proper submissions were made before the Learned CIT(A), resulting in submissions were made before the Learned CIT(A), resulting in submissions were made before the Learned CIT(A), resulting in dismissal of the appeal. The assessee became aware of such appeal. The assessee became aware of such appeal. The assessee became aware of such dismissal only upon receipt of recovery proceedings, whereafter dismissal only upon receipt of recovery proceedings, whereafter dismissal only upon receipt of recovery proceedings, whereafter prompt steps were taken to file the present appeal. The explanation prompt steps were taken to file the present appeal. The explanation prompt steps were taken to file the present appeal. The explanation furnished indicates that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate, furnished indicates that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate, furnished indicates that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate, but was occasioned due to bona fide circumstances beyond the asioned due to bona fide circumstances beyond the asioned due to bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. control of the assessee.

ITA No. ITA No. 558/Mum/2026 Sampatlal Sohanlal Jain Sampatlal Sohanlal Jain 2.1 Having considered the explanation and the material on record, Having considered the explanation and the material on record, Having considered the explanation and the material on record, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed reasonable cause from filing the appeal within t reasonable cause from filing the appeal within t period. In such circumstances, the delay deserves to be condoned period. In such circumstances, the delay deserves to be condoned period. In such circumstances, the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. in the interest of substantial justice. Accordingly, the delay of 313 Accordingly, the delay of 313 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3.

rayed on behalf of Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee p Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed on behalf of the assessee that the matter should be restored back to the file of the assessee that the matter should be restored back to the file of the assessee that the matter should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and one more opportunity may be provided to file all the Ld. CIT(A) and one more opportunity may be provided to file all the Ld. CIT(A) and one more opportunity may be provided to file all the necessary documents in support of its claim. the necessary documents in support of its claim.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the We have heard the rival submissions and perused the We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the Learned CIT(A) has available on record. It is evident that the Learned CIT(A) has available on record. It is evident that the Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal primarily on account of non-compliance by dismissed the appeal primarily on account of non dismissed the appeal primarily on account of non the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The reasons for such the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The reasons for such the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The reasons for such non-compliance have already been explained by the ass compliance have already been explained by the assessee while compliance have already been explained by the ass seeking seeking seeking condonation condonation condonation of of of delay, delay, delay, namely, namely, namely, lack lack lack of of of effective effective effective representation by the erstwhile consultant. In our considered view, representation by the erstwhile consultant. In our considered view, representation by the erstwhile consultant. In our considered view, the assessee cannot be made to suffer irreparable prejudice solely the assessee cannot be made to suffer irreparable prejudice solely the assessee cannot be made to suffer irreparable prejudice solely on account of the omission or negligence of his authorised on account of the omission or negligence of his autho on account of the omission or negligence of his autho representative, particularly when the explanation furnished appears representative, particularly when the explanation furnished appears representative, particularly when the explanation furnished appears bona fide and plausible. bona fide and plausible.

4.1 It is a settled principle that the appellate authority is under a It is a settled principle that the appellate authority is under a It is a settled principle that the appellate authority is under a statutory obligation to adjudicate the issues on merits and pass a statutory obligation to adjudicate the issues on merits and pass a statutory obligation to adjudicate the issues on merits and pass a

ITA No. ITA No. 558/Mum/2026 Sampatlal Sohanlal Jain Sampatlal Sohanlal Jain reasoned and speakin reasoned and speaking order. Dismissal of an appeal merely for g order. Dismissal of an appeal merely for non-prosecution, without examining the merits of the case, does not prosecution, without examining the merits of the case, does not prosecution, without examining the merits of the case, does not meet the requirements of law. In the facts of the present case, the meet the requirements of law. In the facts of the present case, the meet the requirements of law. In the facts of the present case, the impugned order does not reflect any substantive adjudication of the impugned order does not reflect any substantive adjudication of the impugned order does not reflect any substantive adjudication of the issues raised by the assessee, including the challenge to the ised by the assessee, including the challenge to the ised by the assessee, including the challenge to the addition under section 69A and the legal grounds regarding validity addition under section 69A and the legal grounds regarding validity addition under section 69A and the legal grounds regarding validity of reassessment.

4.2 In the interest of substantial justice, therefore, we deem it In the interest of substantial justice, therefore, we deem it In the interest of substantial justice, therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Learned CIT(A) appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Learn appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Learn and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Learned and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Learned and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Learned CIT(A) shall: (i) afford a reasonable and effective opportunity of CIT(A) shall: (i) afford a reasonable and effective opportunity of CIT(A) shall: (i) afford a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee; (ii) consider all submissions and being heard to the assessee; (ii) consider all submissions and being heard to the assessee; (ii) consider all submissions and evidences that may be furnished; and (iii) ad evidences that may be furnished; and (iii) adjudicate the issues judicate the issues afresh on merits by passing a reasoned order in accordance with afresh on merits by passing a reasoned order in accordance with afresh on merits by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and comply with all notices issued by the Learned CIT(A) and comply with all notices issued by the Learned CIT(A) and comply with all notices issued by the Learned CIT(A)

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 20/04/2026. /04/2026.

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

ITA No. ITA No. 558/Mum/2026 Sampatlal Sohanlal Jain Sampatlal Sohanlal Jain Mumbai; Dated: 20/04/2026 Aditi Pandare, Private Secretary Copy of the Order forwarded to forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy//

BY ORDER, BY ORDER,

(Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →