J AND J CONSULTANTS LLP,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [for short “CIT(A)”] dated 30.10.2025, for the

assessment year 2020-21.

are perused. The Learned Authorised Representative (‘Ld. AR’) of the

assessee fairly submits that, there is the delay of 43 days in filling the

appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has already filed affidavit of

its designated partner namely, Jigar Kamlesh Desai. The ld. AR of the

assessee submits that, delay in filling the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The impugned order was passed by ld CIT(A) on

30.10.2025. However, it was received in junk/spam folder of the

assessee’s mail ID. The designated partner of the assessee received

call from the department about the outstanding demand on

18.12.2025, only then he realised about the dismissal of the first

appeal and immediately initiated action for filing appeal before the

Tribunal. In fact, there is no delay from the date of knowledge of

order. Otherwise, the delay is not large and the assessee is really

interested in pursuing its case on merits. The Ld. AR of the assessee

submits that, the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to

succeed, if their case is heard on merits.

was completed without giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the

assessee. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) issued a show- cause notice

dated 14.09.2022 for proposing the additions of more than Rs. 90

Crores and required compliance on or before 19.09.2022 that is

within four days. No sufficient time was allowed by the AO. Till the

assessee could furnish reply, the window of ITBA Portal was closed.

Thus, the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause

in making compliance before the Assessing Officer. Before CIT(A),

the assessee filed an application for admission of the additional

evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The application

of the assessee was not admitted by the Ld.CIT(A) and after

dismissal of such application, he upheld the action of the AO. Thus, the assessee was denied for fair and reasonable opportunity by the

lower authorities. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the matter

may be restored back to the file of the AO with the liberty to the

assessee to furnish all the evidences before him. He is making

specific prayer to restore the matter to the file of AO, as in case the

matter is restore back to the file of CIT(A), he may require remand

report from AO, thus, in order to avoid the long drawn process and

technicalities of the remand report, it is better to restore the matter

to the file of the AO. He undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more

vigilant in future in making time compliance.

(‘Ld. Sr. DR’) for the Revenue not seriously opposed the condonation

of delay in filling the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. DR,

submits that the Bench may take appropriate view in accordance with

law. However, on merit the Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that

the assessee has neither made proper compliance before the AO nor

shown the reasonable cause for admission of the additional evidence

before ld CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee does not deserve any

leniency at this stage. In case, the Bench is of the view that the

assessee requires a fresh opportunity of hearing, the matter may be

restored to the file of CIT(A) only with the direction to me vigilant in

future.

we are considering the plea of condonation of delay raised by the assessee. We find that the assessee has filed an affidavit of its

designated partner namely Jigar Kamlesh Desai to explained the

circumstances in explaining such delay. The Ld. AR of the assessee

while explaining the delay vehemently argued before us that the

delay in filling the appeal is not intentional, but due to the fact that

mail communication went in junk/spam folder of the assessee, which

could not be realised/seen. The assessee realised only on receiving

call from the department about demand of tax. Considering the

overall facts of the case, we find that the delay in filling the appeal

has been reasonably explained. Moreover, the delay is not intentional.

The assessee is not going to be benefited by filling the appeal

belatedly. Thus, considering the overall facts of the case, delay in

filling the appeal before the tribunal is condoned. Now adverting to

the merits of the case.

that the AO before passing the assessment order, issued show cause

notice on 14.09.2022 for proposing addition of Rs. 91.76 Crores, on

account of unsecured investment and variation in respect of the

disallowance of claim under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act. The

assessee was asked to furnish reply on 10:00 am on 19.09.2022. We

find that the AO was having sufficient time for passing the

assessment order; despite such availability of time he has allowed

only 4 days time to file reply. Thus, in our view the assessee was not

allowed fair and reasonable time to make response to show cause notice on 14.09.2022. We further find that before Ld. CIT(A), the

assessee tried to file an additional evidence by filling the application

under Rule 46A. The application of the assessee was dismissed by

the Ld. CIT(A). Resultantly, the addition made in the assessment

order was upheld.

that the assessee was not allowed fair and reasonable opportunity by

the lower authorities. Thus, keeping in view the principle of natural

justice, the matter is restored back to the file of the AO to pass the

assessment order afresh and in accordance with law. The assessee is

given liberty to furnish all the evidence qua issues identified by the

AO. Needles, to direct that before passing the assessment order

afresh, the AO shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the

assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in the

future, in making timely compliances. In the result, various grounds

raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

purposes.

Result of the order pronounced in open court on 25.06.2026 at the

time of hearing

Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 29/06/2026 Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar/Sr Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai