JAY GAGANGIRI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1265/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation of delay. The assessee was directed to file an affidavit and appear on fixed dates.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 365 days. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices from the AO and sought condonation of delay, but an affidavit was not filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable and not condoning the delay without proper consideration of the assessee's reasons.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILSHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian
For Respondent: Shri Rajen

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1265/Mum./2026 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Jay Gagangiri Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., E/1, 2 2C/2, Sector – 3E, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai, Thane - 410218 ……………. Appellant PAN : AAAAJ7963N v/s

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 28(1)(1), Tower Number 6, Vashi Railway Station Commercial Complex, ……………. Respondent Vashi Navi Mumbai, Thane - 400703.

Assessee by : Shri M. Subramanian Revenue by : Shri Rajen

Date of Hearing – 22/04/2026 Date of Order – 18/05/2026

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 16.12.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015- 16.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

2 ITA No.433/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2010-11)

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the act is invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the act is invalid and bad in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal.”

3.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay.

4.

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the learned CIT(A) issued notice of hearing on 02.12.2025, calling for submissions on or before 09.12.2025, on which date, the assessee sought an adjournment. However, thereafter, there was no communication received from the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed vide order passed on 16.12.2025. Explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), the learned AR submitted that none of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) was received by the assessee, and it was completely unaware of the assessment proceedings. The learned AR submitted that the assessee only came to know about the assessment order when it received the letter dated 19.07.2024 rectifying the computation sheet in the 1st week of December, 2024, and thereafter, immediately, the assessee gave necessary instructions to its tax consultant for filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned AR submitted that, accordingly, due to the

3 ITA No.433/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2010-11)

aforesaid circumstances, the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was delayed by 365 days.

5.

From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the assessee stated similar reasons for seeking condonation of the delay. However, the same were not supported by any affidavit of the assessee. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) rejected the condonation of the assessee and held that there is no valid reason for the condonation of the delay. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that due to a lack of proper opportunity, the affidavit, though ready, could not be filed before the learned CIT(A).

6.

Therefore, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the learned CIT(A) and explain the reason for not filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, we restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after reconsideration of the assessee’s request for condonation of delay. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to submit all the details/documents/affidavit in support of its contentions. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates as may be fixed without any default. Accordingly, with the above directions, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4 ITA No.433/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2010-11)

7.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 18/05/2026 Prabhat Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant 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 →