MUKESH KUMAR MODI,JODHPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 865/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 May 2026AY 2010-1110 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the husband's judicial custody constituted a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were rejected by the CIT(A) as non-maintainable due to being filed belatedly. The assessee contended that the delay was caused by the husband's judicial custody and subsequent medical issues, preventing timely compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was sufficiently caused and should be condoned. Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeals as non-maintainable without considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Hearing: 06.05.2026Pronounced: 07.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 864 /Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Neha Modi DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Adarsh Nagar Sirohi, Rajasthan Jodhpur PAN No. ARNPG1202A

ITA No. 865/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Mukesh Kumar Modi, DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Kutumb Adarsh Nagar, Rampura, Jodhpur Sirohi, Rajasthan-307001 PAN No. ABDPM5412C

ITA No. 866 to 868/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2009-10, 2016-17 and 2019-20) Daksha Kumari Jain DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Kutumb Adarsh Nagar, Rampura, Jodhpur Sirohi, Rajasthan-307001 PAN No. AEFPJ5410A

Assessee by Shri Amit Kothari CA, (Physically) Revenue by Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06.05.2026. Date of Pronouncement 07.05.2026.

2 ITA No. 864 to 868/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20) ORDER PER BENCH.: These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-5 [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] with respect to the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 challenging therein the sole and common issue of rejection of these appeals by the ld. CIT(A) as non-maintainable on the ground that appeals have been filed belatedly.

ITA No. 864/Jodh/2025 (Assessment year 2018-19)

2.

At the outset the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that consequent to the search action conducted for the second time against Shri Mukesh Modi and his family members including the present appellant assessee several other proceedings were initiated against all the family members under various other provisions of the Act and the AR has explained that the appellants were entangled in the legal compliances and submitting replies to multiple notices issued to them. The AR further stated that Shri Mukesh Modi was the key family member who has got many medical problems (such as heart problem and diabetes) and was under judicial custody and still he has been put to

3 ITA No. 864 to 868/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20) judicial custody and not even allowed to meet people. The AR has explained that main source of money in the hands of the family members had been salary income as received from Adarsh Cooperative Society. He has raised legal objection to the addition made under Section 153A that assessment was not made based on any material found during the search. However, since the appeal was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A), as not maintainable being filed belatedly without going into merits of the case by observing that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for such a delay of long period of 3 year and 7 months, the AR was asked to limit its submission to the CIT(A)’s decision rejecting appeals as non-maintainable for the delay, that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A).

3.

The Ld. AR contended that Mr. Rohit Modi, the husband of the assessee is the key person of the family who was in judicial custody since May 2018 and still in judicial custody so it was not possible to make compliance in the tax matters. The AR contended that the assessee even could not file its return of income for the assessment year under consideration, even though he has only salary income. He pleaded that the assessee has sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before

4 ITA No. 864 to 868/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20) the Ld. CIT(A), as she was dependent on her husband as above and pleaded for condonation of delay and restoring the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide on merits of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

4.

On the other hand the Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the appellant has not filed any application of condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A), he was required to file a proper application for condonation of delay to be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). However, he has no objection in restoring the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to hear the appeal afresh and decide the matter on merits of the case.

5.

Having heard both the sides and perusal of the material on record and the impugned order, we find that the appeal of the assessee has been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) as not maintainable by observing that the appellant could not show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before him.

6.

Admittedly, Mr. Rohit Modi was in judicial custody since May 2018 and still in judicial custody who was the key person of the family and the husband of the appellant assessee who has been looking after

5 ITA No. 864 to 868/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20) the tax matter from filing of return of income to attending the income tax proceedings. It is noted that assessee has salary income and AO and Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order for non-compliance on the part of the assessee.

7.

In the present case, since the main person of the family Mr. Rohit Modi was in judicial custody for the assessment year under consideration and till date he is in custody, which do constitute sufficient cause for non-compliance before lower authorities and also for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) wherein, it has been held that sufficient cause for condonation of delay must be construed liberally in order to advance substantial justice and technical considerations should not prevail over the cause of substantial justice and in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of N. Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, wherein, a delay of 883 days was condoned by observing as follows:-

"13. It must be remembered in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his

6 ITA No. 864 to 868/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20) plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor:"

8.

Considering the peculiar facts and judicial precedents. We direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and admit the appeal on merits of the case.

9.

Accordingly. we remand back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh after granting an adequate opportunity of being bear to the assessee and after considering the material available on record and the submission filed before him during the course of fresh appellate proceedings. At the same time the assessee is directed to made due compliance in time to the queries raised by the Ld. CIT(A) and cooperate in the fresh proceedings.

ITA No. 865 and 866/Jodh/2025 (A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11)

10.

These two appeals are covered matter by the judgment of the ITAT Jodhpur Bench, where the Tribunal vide its order dated 24.03.2026 in the case of Bharat Das Vaishnav Vs. DCIT Central Circle-1 Jodhpur in ITA

7 ITA No. 864 to 868/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20) No. 236 and 237/Jodh/2024 on parity of the facts has condoned the delay of the appeal of 1460 days by observing as under:- 4. Having heard both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the appellant assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the AO before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court against the reassessment order dated 03.02.2024 and that litigation culminated into dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 15.01.2018. It is admitted fact on record that on dismissal of SLP by the Apex Court vide its order dated 15.01.2018, the appellant assessee has filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 14.02.2018 i.e. within 30 days as per mandate. If the litigation period is exempted or being utilized in availing legal rights before the higher judicial forums, which constitute sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. In view of principle of natural justice, every appellant assessee or common man has a fundamental right to avail legal rights before the Hon'ble High Courts and Apex Courts in the civil, revenue and other proceedings. In the present case, thus challenging the jurisdiction of the AO in the reassessment order before the higher judicial Courts as discussed above, would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 6. It is noted that the delay of the appeal of 1460 days has been due to the long litigation took place in availing the legal rights by the assessee in challenging jurisdiction of the AO in the reassessment

8 ITA No. 864 to 868/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20) order by writ petition before the judicial High Court and finally by filing SLP before the Apex Court. In our view, the time consumed in the litigation for availing the legal rights before the higher judicial Courts by the appellant assessee does constitute sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Accordingly, we accept the grievance of the assessee as genuine and the delay in filing all these appeals, deserves to be condoned as there was sufficient cause shown by the assessee for its failure to file the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of Limitation Act. In view of that matter, we consider it deem appropriate to remand back both these appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion, the matter in both the appeals is restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law. 11. Following the coordinate bench’s decision in the case of Bharat Das Vaishnav (Supra), these two appeals in ITA No. 865 and 866/Jodh/2025, the delay in filing these appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) is condoned and accordingly these appeals are restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law.

9 ITA No. 864 to 868/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20) ITA No. 867 and 868/Jodh/2025

12.

The period of delay in filing these appeals fall during the COVID period and the said period of delay in filing these appeals are covered in the exempted period as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment delivered while adjudicating Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 dated January 10, 2022, by observing that where the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was exempted from the period of limitation for filing any appeal or applications. The Ld. AR contended that these appeals were filed physically with the Ld. CIT(A) Udaipur as it could not be filed on E-mail portal of the department due to technical glitches. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting these appeals as non- maintainable as being filed belated on the E-mail portal by not considering the physically filed appeals.

13.

Following the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment (supra), we condoned the delay in filing the appeal in ITA No. 867 and 868/Jodh/2025 as being covered under the COVID period which has been exempted from the period of limitation in filing the appeals.

10 ITA No. 864 to 868/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20) 14. Accordingly, these two appeals in ITA No. 867 and 868/Jodh/2025 are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated on merits of the case afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

14.

In the result all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 07 / 05 / 2026 in the open court.

SD/- SD/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 07 / 05 / 2026. Pritesh Vaishnav PS TRUE COPY Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →