A S CREATIONS,MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1622/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 June 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 147, but notices were sent to an incorrect address, preventing participation in reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned and if the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Sakaria, CA (Virtually appeared)
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan- SR. DR
Hearing: 29.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2013–14, arising from the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

ITA No.1622/M/2026 A S Creations 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment was reopened under Section 147. As the notices were issued at an incorrect address and the assessee-firm was no longer functioning, neither the assessee nor its authorised representative could participate in the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte and made various additions on a best judgment basis. The assessee came to know of the assessment order and the consequential demand only in the year 2023 through a former employee who had been receiving communications from the Department on his personal mobile number.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, there was a delay of 466 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A), not being satisfied with the explanation furnished, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine, confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer without adjudicating the issues on merits.

4.

The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. It was thus pleaded that the delay may be condoned and the matter be restored for adjudication on merits.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal solely on account of not condoning the delay in filling the appeal without examining the issues on merits. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, particularly the explanation offered

ITA No.1622/M/2026 A S Creations by the assessee and bearing in mind that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to pursue the appeal.

7.

Accordingly, we condone the delay of 466 days and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.

The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish requisite details as may be called for by the Assessing Officer. In case of non-compliance, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to decide the matter based on the material available on record.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 30/06/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary

ITA No.1622/M/2026 A S Creations Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T. By order

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →