AZIMUL REHMAN KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2249/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 June 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 73 days in filing the appeal and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A) after a delay of 73 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay or adjudicating on the merits of the case. The assessee contested this dismissal and other actions of the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits. Whether the AO's actions regarding reassessment notices and capital gains computation were compliant with the law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 48,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 08.06.2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: A BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 2249/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assmt. Year: 2020-21) ITO WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI AZIMUL REHMAN KHAN KAUTILYA BHAVAN, C-41 ROOM NO 1, NEAR INDIAN TO C-43, G BLOCK, STAR BAKERY, BEHIND BANDRA KURLA KALINA CHURCH, KALINA, Vs. SANTACRUZ, MUMBAI, COMPLEX, BANDRA MUMBAI-400029, (EAST), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA (अपीलाथ� Appellant) (��थ� Respondent) Permanent Account Number of BQYPK3500J Assessee: िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee represented by: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue represented by: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 18.05.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 08.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN:

ITA 2249/Mum/2026 Azimul Rehman Khan A.Y. 2020-21

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083957864(1) dated 22.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning delay and without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO in issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO of not complying with the provisions of section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO in charging of long-term capital gains of Rs. 78,33,000/- without allowing the Indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs. 20,80,602 and Indexed cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 39,27,860/- 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to consider that as per the assumption of Ld AO if the cost of the asset is absent then, no capital gain could be computed as the computation mechanism as provided in section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 gets failed in the absence of cost. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234F of Income Tax Act,1961. 2.1. Through ground no.1, assessee is contesting that ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

3.

It is noted that there is a delay of 73 days in filing the first appeal for which assessee had furnished a petition for condoning the delay. Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the said petition in the first appellate order, whereupon he observes that condonation requires robust justification. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) by condoning the said delay for its

ITA 2249/Mum/2026 Azimul Rehman Khan A.Y. 2020-21

meritorious adjudication. For this, he assured the Bench of full cooperation and compliance once such an opportunity is given.

4.

Considering the prayer so made by the ld. Counsel of the assessee and ld. Sr. DR, relying on the wisdom of the Bench, we find it appropriate to consider the same and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay of 73 days in filing the first appeal so as to deal with the issues meritoriously. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made by him. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in making all his submissions, so as to comply with the notices for hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the first appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 08 June, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Pawan Singh) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 08 June, 2026 MP, Sr.P.S. Copy to: 1 The Appellant 2 The Respondent 3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4 Guard File 5 CIT BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) 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 →