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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 1374/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jay Gagangiri Sahakari Patasanstha Ltd. E/1,2 2C/2, Sector 3E, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai, Thane 410218 [PAN: AAAAJ7963N] …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Ward-28(1)91) Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 200703 …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri M. Subramanian For the Respondent/Department : Shri Arun B Date Conclusion of hearing : 05.05.2026 Pronouncement of order : 18.05.2026

O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the Order, dated 09/12/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144, read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Years 2016-17.

ITA No. 1374/Mum/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 = CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal”. 3. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) merely on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation rejecting the application, dated 08/12/2025, filed by the Assessee seeking time of four weeks for furnishing the written submissions. It was submitted that the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee as not maintainable without hearing the Assessee and without granting the Assessee an opportunity to provide explanation for delay in filling the appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee placed on record the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Assessee in appeals pertaining to the Assessment Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 (ITA No. 1305 to 1307/Mum/2026, dated and ITA No. 1308 to 1310/Mum/2026, Common Order dated 28/04/2026), and contended that in identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was pleased to set aside similar ex- parte order passed by the Learned CIT(A) in quantum proceedings.

ITA No. 1374/Mum/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 = for condoning the delay in filling the appeal. During the course of hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that in response to the notice of hearing, dated 02/12/2025, issued by the Learned CIT(A) (calling upon the Assessee to file the submissions on or before 09/12/2025), the Assessee had made a request vide letter, dated 08/12/2025, for grant of time of four weeks for furnishing written submissions. It is the case of the Assessee that no further notice was issued and the order impugned by way of present appeal was passed on 13/01/2026 dismissing the appeal preferred by the Assessee. In support of the aforesaid averments/submissions, the Assessee has filed the affidavit sworn by the chairman of the Assessee- Company. We further note that, vide Order dated 28/04/2026, the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has granted relief to the Assessee in relation to the similar ex-parte orders passed in the case of the Assessee challenging the penalty orders passed under Section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271(F) for the Assessment Years 2015-2016 and 2016- 2017. The relevant extract of the aforesaid Common Order dated 28/04/2026 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1305 to 1307/Mum/2026, dated and ITA No. 1308 to 1310/Mum/2026 reads as under:

“2. 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 orders, dismissed the separate appeals filed by the assessee on the ground of delay. 3. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative ("learned AR") submitted that the learned CIT(A) issued a notice of hearing. In response thereto, the assessee sought an adjournment. However, thereafter, no communication was received from the learned CIT(A), and the assessee's appeal was dismissed vide the impugned orders. 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 of the penalty orders in the 1st week of December, 2024, and thereafter, immediately, the assessee gave necessary instructions to its tax consultant to file the appeals before the learned CIT(A). The learned AR submitted that, accordingly, due to the aforesaid

ITA No. 1374/Mum/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 = circumstances, the appeals before the learned CIT(A) were delayed by 206-241 days. 4. 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). 5. 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, eriod. Consequently, Consequen 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 orders are set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.”

ITA No. 1374/Mum/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 = Needless to mention that no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Further, the Assessee is directed to submit all the details/documents/affidavit in support of its contentions. Accordingly, with the above directions, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 18.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Om Prakash Kant) (Rahul Chaudhary) Accountant Member Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 18.05.2026 Aditi Pandare, Private Secretary

ITA No. 1374/Mum/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 = आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file.

आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai