MOHAMAD NASHIR SHAH,IMPHAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 146/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 May 2026AY 2019-207 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard, and the AO was also to be heard if required.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were barred by limitation. The assessee cited the ethnic conflict in Manipur as a reason for the delay, stating it was beyond his control. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be admitted despite being time-barred, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without a decision on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 145(3),Section 69A,Section 270A,Section 271A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 133A,Section 131(1A),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Central NER, Guwahati [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 dated 25.08.2025. Since the issues in these appeals are related, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

1.

1 The Registry has informed that all the appeals are barred by limitation by 141 days. The assessee has filed a petition along with an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the assessee is a civil contractor based in Imphal, Manipur and is not conversant with the legal and procedural requirements for approaching the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Upon receiving the appeal orders, the assessee was not immediately aware that a further appeal lay before the ITAT and due to the pressing work commitments, the assessee could not promptly attend to the matter or provide the necessary documents and instructions to his Authorized Representative within the prescribed time limit. The assessee requested the Bench that since the delay was not wilful or deliberate and no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the Revenue, the same may be condoned. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeals within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 146/GTY/2026; AY 2019-20: “Ground no. 1 — CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal for nonprosecution without adjudicating on merits — violation of principles of natural justice. Ground no. 2 — reopening of assessment under section 147/148 for AY 2019-20 is illegal, without valid juri iction and liability to be quashed. Ground no. 3 — rejection of books under section 145(3) is arbitrary and without identifying specific defects; estimation of profit at 8% is wrong, arbitrary, unsupported and legally untenable. Ground no. 4 — addition of Rs.67,41,000/- under section 69A is illegal, constitutes taxation of the same income and is liable to be deleted in toto. Ground no. 5 — penalty proceedings under sections 270A, 271A AND 271AAC(1) are unjustified and must be dropped.” II. ITA No. 147/GTY/2026; AY 2020-21: “Ground 1: reassessment u/s 147 is without juri iction — fresh tangible material requirement not met. Ground 2: CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without adjudication on merits. Ground 3: rejection of books u/s 145(3) is unwarranted in facts and law.

Ground 4: profit estimation of 8% is arbitrary, excessive and legally unsustainable. Ground 5: section 69C addition of Rs.8,67,500/- is legally untenable — double taxation and wrong section applied. Ground 6: section 69A addition of Rs.94,86,000/- is legally unsustainable. Ground 7: application of section 115BBE at special rate of 60% is disproportionate. Ground 8: penalty proceedings are premature and unsustainable. Ground 9: interest u/s 234A and 234B.” III. ITA No. 148/GTY/2026; AY 2022-23: “Ground 1: CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without adjudication on merits. Ground 2: wrongful rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3). Ground 3: profit estimation at 8% is arbitrary, excessive, and legally unsustainable. Ground 4: section 69C addition of Rs.60,94,700/- is legally unsustainable —wrongful application of provision. Ground 5: penalty proceedings are premature and should not be confirmed.”

3.

We shall first take up ITA No. 146/GTY/2026 for adjudication.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A survey u/s 133A of the of the Act was conducted on 05.02.2022 at the office- cum-business premise of Md. Nashir Shah. During the course of the survey, cash amounting to ₹27,00,000/- was found at the said premise. The assessee was not available at the survey premises as he was out of station in Guwahati during the survey operation. Statement of Md. Habib Shah, brother and business associate of the assessee was recorded u/s 133A of the Act, on 05.02.2022 in which he stated that Md. Nashir Shah is a Class-1 Civil Contractor engaged in the construction of roads and bridges, no books of account of Md. Nashir Shah were maintained in the office at Kairang Awang Leikai, Imphal East, Manipur-795114 and he did not know where the books of account of Md. Nashir Shah were maintained. The source of the cash of ₹27,00,000/- found in the office premises was stated to be from contract receipts of Md. Nashir Shah and the cash was kept in the office to make payments to labourers and for other business expenses. The cash found was seized along with the books of account in the course of the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act carried out subsequent to the finding of the cash. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') conducted post-search enquiries and the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 131(1A) of the Act on 01.04.2022 and the assessee stated that the books of account were not up to date for FY 2021-22 and they were with the accountant. The Ld. AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessee filed the return of income showing total income of ₹53,08,280/-. The additions on account of variation in profit from contract works for ₹1,09,52,628/- and another addition of ₹67,41,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money and the total income was assessed at ₹2,30,01,908/- u/s 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2019-20. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who considered the grounds of appeal, the assessment order and as no submission other than those annexed with Form No. 35 were furnished by the assessee, he dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution. He further held that the grounds of appeal could not be accepted as the assessee had failed to provide/furnish any documents/evidences to corroborate his claims in the course of the appellate proceedings and he could not controvert the findings of the Ld. AO in the assessment order with documentary facts and evidences. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR who supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the appeal may be dismissed.

6.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In Ground No. 1 the assessee has submitted that the non-prosecution of the appeal was entirely due to circumstances beyond the assessee’s control i.e. the devastating ethnic conflict in Manipur that erupted on 03.05.2023 and continued through the hearing dates and which resulted in over 258 fatalities, displacement of 60,000+ persons, imposition of curfew, internet shutdowns, and invocation of Article 355 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that the Supreme Court of India itself had recognized the ‘absolute breakdown of law and order’ in Manipur. Other legal issues have also been raised. However, since the assessee has mentioned the reasons for non-compliance which was beyond his control and related to external factors, the Bench was of the view that one more opportunity of being heard needs to be provided to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to him for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merits by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submissions he wants to make in support of the grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

Since the appeals in ITA No(s). 147 & 148/GTY/2026 for A.Ys. 2020-21 & 2022-23 were also dismissed on account of prosecution and the facts are similar, for these two assessment years as well, the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) are set aside and the appeal is restored before him to grant another opportunity to the assessee and also to the Ld. AO, if required as in A.Y. 2019-20 and both these appeals are also partly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th May, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 18.05.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Mohamad Nashir Shah, Kairang Awang Leikai Imphal, Imphal, Manipur, 795002. 2. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati.

3.

CIT(A)- Central NER, Guwahati.

4.

CIT-

5.

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

6.

Guard File. //// By order

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →