PRAFULLA PANDURANG JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2347/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 June 2026AY 2014-1512 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the addition and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2014-2015, despite information received about large commodity trading transactions. Reassessment proceedings were initiated, and the Assessing Officer made additions based on the alleged turnover.

What were the issues?

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated beyond the prescribed time limits and the legality of additions made without proper investigation and evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 149(1)(b),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent. आयकरआय क्त/ The CIT 3. 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीयप्रदिदनदध ,आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण ,म ुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file.

आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपिप्रदि //True Copy//

उप/सह यकपुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, म ुंबई / 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 →