MR. SANJIV KUMAR ARORA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 62/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 April 2026AY 2012-138 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had provided a justifiable explanation and that the principle of advancing substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... us Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's application for raising additional grounds, deeming them legal in nature and going to the root of the case, referencing Supreme Court decisions in Jute Corporation India Ltd. Vs. CIT and The NTPC Vs. CIT. Due to the legal nature of the additional grounds and the fact that the assessee was ex parte before the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund, with a copy of the receipt to be filed before the CIT(A) within 30 days. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing and the assessee was directed to be cooperative and not seek frivolous adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Arora, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal was filed with a delay of 10 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing reliance on a tax consultant and personal reasons including being out of town for a business conference. The NFAC order was received on 28.10.2024, making the last date for filing the appeal 27.12.2024, but it was filed on 06.01.2025. The original assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 was passed on 24.12.2019, making additions of Rs. 24,28,000/- and Rs. 1,02,00,000/- under section 69A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT is liable to be condoned. The assessee argued that the delay was due to reasonable cause and circumstances beyond his control, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on the delay. 2. Whether the additional grounds raised by the assessee, challenging the validity and legality of the notice under section 148 and the reassessment proceedings for failing to follow prescribed procedures and for issuing reasons on the same day as the assessment order, are admissible. The assessee contended that these grounds are legal in nature and go to the root of the case, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Jute Corporation India Ltd. Vs. CIT and The NTPC Vs. CIT. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on the admissibility of additional grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69A,Section 250,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. AR)
Hearing: 26.03.2026Pronounced: 02.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 62/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Arora Vs. Sitaram Meena House No. 4E Asalfa near The Income Tax Officer ghatkopar (W) 27 (3) (2) BKC Maharastra - 400084 Mumbai Sitaram Meena The Income Tax Officer 27 (3) (2) BKC Mumbai Kautyaly Bhavan PAN/GIR No. AMGPA0936K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Neha Paranjpe Revenue by Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. AR) Date of Hearing 26.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 02.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2012-13. The following grounds are reproduced below:

2 ITA No. 62/Mum/2025

“1. The learned assessing officer unjustified in issuing notice under section 148 dated 29-09-2019 for reopening the assessment unjustified in reopening of assessment. 2. The assessee is carrying on retail business in cash basis, profit is calculated u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act 1961 3. The learned assessing officer has earned in law in making Addition of Rs 1,02,00,000/- in Purchase residential flat, whereas money has been earned from business and past saving treating the Income under section 69A unexplained money cash deposited in bank account. 4. The income tax officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of income tax Act. 5. The income tax officer has erred in charging interest under section 234A 234B 234C of the income tax act. 6. The appellant craves leave add ament any of the ground at time or before the hearing. ”

2.

At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay in filing the appeal before us, for which an application has been placed on record. The same is reproduced herein below :

From. Sanjiv Kumar Arora 1901, Montreal tower, Shastri Nagar. Andheri west Mumbai-68 To. The Assistant Registrar, Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches- 'B' Mumbai-400 020 Respected Sir, Ref: In the case of Sanjiv Kumar Arora PAN: AMGPA0936K

3 ITA No. 62/Mum/2025

Appeal No. 62/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2012-13 Sub: Petition to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal

The present petition is being filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act was received by the Applicant on 28.10.2024. Thus, the last date of filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT was 27.12.2024. However, the appeal was filed on 06.01.2025 before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal which is barred by limitation by 10 days. The Applicant submits that the said delay in filing the appeal is due to the reasonable cause and due to the reasons beyond the control of the Applicant. Hence, the Applicant requests before the Hon'ble Tribunal to kindly condone the delay after considering following submission.

1.

The Applicant is an Individual Assessee and was subjected to the reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year: 2012-13. Being a layman, the Applicant is not conversant with the compliances and the appeal procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, he completely relies on the tax consultant for all the compliances as well as for the assessment and appellate proceedings.

2.

The assessment order dated 24.12.2019 was passed in the case of Applicant under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.24,28,000/- under section 69A of the Act by treating the cash deposits as unexplained money. Further, the AO also made the addition of Rs.1,02,00,000/-under section 69A of the Act by doubting the investment made by the Applicant. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, an appeal was preferred to the Ld.CIT(A) challenging the said additions made by the AO.

4 ITA No. 62/Mum/2025

3.

The appeal was disposed off by passing the order dated 24.10.2024 under section 250 of the Act. The said order was received by the Applicant on 28.10.2024. After receiving the appeal order, the Applicant immediately forwarded the same to the tax consultant for further course of action in the first week of November, 2024.

4.

After pursuing the appeal order, the tax consultant advised him to file the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Mumbai. The tax consultant, therefore, prepared the draft of the appeal and send the same to the Applicant in the first week of December, 2024 for signing and payment of appeal fees.

5.

On receipt of the draft of the appeal, the Applicant could not act on the instructions given by the tax consultant within the time prescribed under the law as during the same period he was out of town to attend some business conference.

6.

The Applicant could pay the appeal fees only on 04.01.2025 and thereafter provided the appeal sets to the tax consultant for filing the same before the Hon'ble ITAT. Hence, the appeal was filed before the Hon'ble ITAT only on 06.01.2025 which is barred by limitation by 10 days.

7.

The Applicant submits that the delay in filing appeal was caused due to circumstances beyond my control and the same is not deliberate. There was a reasonable cause due to which the present appeal got delayed. The Applicant submits that he has always acted with due diligence to discharge its statutory duties. Thus, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal in view of the above reasonable cause.

8.

The Applicant relies on the observation of the Apex Court in the case 167 ITR 471 (SC) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji. "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the

5 ITA No. 62/Mum/2025

other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay."

9.

In view of the above submissions, the Applicant prays that your honor may to be pleased to consider the facts of the case and condone the delay of 10 days and oblige.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully.

2.1 Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities of non-deliberate delay then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance, hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and considering the expression “sufficient cause” liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.

3.

The assessee has also filed an application for raising additional grounds, the following are reproduced herein below:

6 ITA No. 62/Mum/2025

1.

The notice dated 29.03.2019 under section 148 of the Act and the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act are without jurisdiction and bad in law as the Ld.AO has failed to follow the procedure to conduct the reassessment proceedings as prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. ITO (259 ITR 19]. 2. The notice under section 148 of the Act and the reassessment order dated 24.12.2019 are bad in law as the copy of the reasons recorded was issued to the Assessee on 24.12.2019 the day on which the assessment order is passed. Thus, the Assessee could not get any opportunity file the objections against the reasons recorded. Hence, the reopening proceedings are bad in law and the same may be quashed and set aside. 3.1 As the grounds raised by the assessee are legal in nature and goes to the roots of the case, therefore while following the principles laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation India Ltd., Vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 and The NTPC Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 and also considering the facts of the present case, we allow the application for raising the additional ground and consequently the said ground are admitted to be heard on merits.

4.

Since we have allowed the assessee to raise an additional ground, which requires factual verification, as the assessee has challenged the validity and legality of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Apart from this, we also noticed that the assessee was ex parte before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering

7 ITA No. 62/Mum/2025

the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

5.

Needless to mention that the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 02.04.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 02/04/2026 RY, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

8 ITA No. 62/Mum/2025

अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →