ANITA DINESH DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITR WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1, Chennai dated 06.10.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The assessee has

raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law. the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex parte and in limine without adjudicating the appeal based on written submissions and documentary evidence placed on record, and merely on the ground that reasons for condonation of delay were explained without verifying that the appeal was filed physically within stipulated time but due to Hon'ble Board notification No. 637 dated 01.03.2016 appeal before CIT(A) was to be filed mandatorily to online and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made thereunder.

Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that appeal of assessee

was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) by taking view that there is a delay of 747 days in

filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). In fact, there was no such delay in filing appeal

before ld. CIT(A). The assessment order was completed on 18.03.2016. The

assessee filed physical appeal on 29.03.2016, copy of Form 35 with statement of

fact and grounds of appeal are filed on record. In 2016, CBDT introduced filing of

e-appeal before CIT(A). Consequently, the assessee also filed appeal electronically.

The assessee while filing appeal electronically on 08.05.2018 explained the fact

that Rule 45 of Income Tax Rules was amended wherein appeal before ld. CIT(A)

was made mandatorily by way of electronic filing with effect from 01.03.2016.

Since the appeal was filed physically, so in compliance of CBDT Notification No.

637 dated 01.03.2016 appeal was also filed electronically. The assessee while filing

appeal electronically explained all the facts. The ld. CIT(A) despite recording all

such facts in para 3 of his order, instead of considering the fact, dismissed the

appeal by taking view that appeal is filed belatedly. In fact, there is no delay, the

delay for technical reason was to be condoned and appeal was to be adjudicated

on merit. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that initially assessment

was completed under section 143(3) and the assessing officer (AO) made

disallowance of similar purchases @12.5%. Again the case was reopened and re-

assessment was completed on 08.03.2016 under section143(3) rws 147, the AO

while passing the assessment order made addition on account of alleged bogus

purchases on the basis of information in insight portal about the accommodation

entry provider. The AO made addition disallowing 12.5% of purchases shown from

two parties namely Prakash Steel & Allies and Shankeshwar Sales Corporation

aggregating of Rs. 1.02 crore. On similar set of fact, the addition in original

assessment was ultimately sustained to the extent estimated @ 3.00% of the

purchases in appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 in order dated 25.01.2021 in ITA

No. 4545 & 4546/M/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively, copy of order

of Tribunal is also placed on record. Thus, the issue has already been considered

and has been decided by the Tribunal in order dated 25.01.2021 in ITA No. 4545

& 4546/M/2019 (supra).

the revenue relied upon the order of ld. CIT(A). On merit, he relied upon the order

of AO.

through the orders of lowers authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the

issue of condonation of delay before ld. CIT(A). We find that in para 3 of impugned

order, the ld. CIT(A) has categorically recorded the contention of assessee about

filing physical appal on 29.03.2016. Before us, the assessee has filed copy of

acknowledgement about filing physical appeal. No doubt that appeal was filed

electronically on 08.05.2018 yet physical appeal was filed on time. The ld. CIT(A)

has not verified the fact about filing of appeal in physical mode and dismissed the

appeal in limine. Thus, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) holding that there was

no delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A).

of the case. We further find that in assessee’s own case or same assessment year

that is in A.Y. 2010-11, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) and

the AO made addition on account of bogus purchases in respect of same parties.

The case of assessee was also reopened A.Y. 2011-12. The AO also made

disallowance @F 12.5% of similar purchases in AY 2011-12. However, on appeal,

before ld. CIT(A), the disallowance was confirmed. On further appeal before

Tribunal, in combined order for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12, restricted the

disallowances to 3.00% of the impugned (disputed) purchases in order dated 25.01.2021. Thus, we find that same purchases have already been taxed by AO.

However, the facts are not very clear as the figure quantum of disallowances is not

discernible form the order of Tribunal nor it is brought to our notice, therefore, we

direct the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) that if similar purchases has

already been added and taxed by him, no further disallowance be made in respect

of same purchases which has already been attained finality. Thus, the matter is

restored to the JAO for limited purpose to verify that if the disallowance made in

assessment order dated 08.03.2016 are same which were in assessment order

passed under section 143(3), no further disallowance be made and in case such

disallowances were not a part of original assessment, then the order of Tribunal

dated 21.05.2021 in ITA No. 4545 &4546/M/2019 be followed and disallowance be

restricted in accordance of order of Tribunal. In the result, grounds of appeal of

assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order was pronounced in the open Court on 25/05/2026.

/- S/- /- SSd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 25/05/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file.

By Order

Assistant Registrar / DDO ITAT, Mumbai