ITO 23 2 6 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAN ELECTRICALS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3166/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 June 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. Considering the subsequent reversal of the High Court judgment by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) which had allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) had relied on a High Court judgment that was later reversed by the Supreme Court. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of notices issued by the Assessing Officer, which was initially decided based on a High Court judgment that was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court, necessitating a fresh review.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL & BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

Pronounced: 22.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 17.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2016-17.

ITA 3166/MUM/2026 PAN Electricals

2.

At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 79 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. Considering the reasons stated by the Revenue for condonation of the delay as reasonable, plausible and bona fide, which have otherwise not been controverted by the Assessee, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3.

In the present case, the Assessing Officer, vide Assessment Order dated 29.12.2013 passed under sections 147 read with 144 and 144B of the Act, made aggregate additions of Rs.1,86,70,510/-, comprising (i) Rs.1,74,87,674/- on account of Long-Term Capital Gain; (ii) Rs.11,51,166/-, being 25% of the contract receipts of Rs.46,04,660/-; and (iii) Rs.31,668/- on account of interest income received by the Assessee.

4.

Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid additions/variations preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner. The ld. Commissioner, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023, dated 03.05.2024), allowed the appeal of the Assessee by holding that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were invalid in law.

5.

It is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has subsequently reversed the aforesaid judgment and remanded the matter to the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court for fresh adjudication in light of the latest statutory amendments.

6.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid development, both the parties have requested that the present matter be remanded. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it

ITA 3166/MUM/2026 PAN Electricals

appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the ld. Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, including adjudication on merits. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner, in the above terms.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Aditi Pandare) Private Secretary

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy//

By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, 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 →