GIRISH NARPATCHAND KANUNGO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7536/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 June 2026AY 2010-117 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The reasons provided indicated negligence and lack of due diligence rather than circumstances beyond the assessee's control.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed 569 days late. The assessee claimed the delay was due to reliance on his accountant and tax consultant, who failed to inform him about the appellate order. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of vigilance and the prolonged period of inaction.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the assessee's reliance on his accountant and tax consultant. Whether the assessee exercised due diligence in pursuing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, (SR. DR)
Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 18.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order dated 18.01.2017, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the

2 Girish Narpatchand Kanungo

Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal [ CIT (A)], Mumbai, for the Assessment Years 2010-2011.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called repeatedly. On going through the case filed I notice that service of summons/notices in the present case were sent to the assessee on different dates and even on 26.05.2026, it was issued on the address submitted by the assessee through speed post and also through email. Since the notice was issued on the address given by the assessee, therefore while drawing inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that service has been validly effected upon the assessee therefore considering these circumstances assessee is proceeded ex-parte.

3.

At the outset we notice that appeal filed by the assesse is time barred by 569 days and in this regard application for seeking condonation has been filed by the assessee, which is reproduced as under:

1, MR. GIRISH NARPATCHAND KANUNGO, the appellant, an individual, having address at Flat No. 3, 2nd Floor, 5 Ram Niwas Building, 2nd Parsiwada Lane, Mumbai- 400004 do hereby humbly submit that: I have filed my ITR on 13/09/2010 u/s. 139 (1) of the Act for the A. Y. 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs. 5,21,510/-, My total income consists Income from Business under the name & style of M/s. Tirupati Impex of Rs. 6,00,463/- and Income from other sources of Rs. 1,676/- respectively for A. Y. 2010-11 after deductions under chapter VI-A of Rs. 80,632/-.

3 Girish Narpatchand Kanungo

The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Further case was reopened and notice us 148 of the Act was issued to me in pursuant of information received from sales tax department as the same has been forwarded by DGIT (Inv) Wing, Mumbai to the assessing officer. Subsequently, Notice u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, were issued to the me. While completing assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, the learned assessing officer has made additions of Rs. 32,76,742/- being 12.5% of the genuine purchases of Rs. 2,62,13,937/- treating the said purchases as bogus from the 10 parties of which information has been forwarded by the DGIT (Inv), Wing, Mumbai to the Assessing officer. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, I filed an appeal manually before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai on 09/03/2016, which was subsequently filed electronically on the Income Tax Portal on 14/06/2016. I further state that my accountant was handling this matter with co-ordination of my tax consultant. The accountant had all the access of my login credentials of income tax portal. During the assessment proceedings before the AO and appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(A)-30, he has provided all the details and documents to the tax consultant. He has knowledge of my accounts and its related details and documents. Being a layman, I was fully dependent on him and he also assured me to look after the complete matter till end. It came to my notice first time in the month of December 2024 after Christmas festival when I got notice of tax demand. also found on portal that there is order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 27.02.2024 dismissing my appeal wherein, it was mentioned that the appeal filed manually had already been decided by the CIT(Appeals) 29, Mumbai vide order u/s 250 of the Act dated 18.01.2017 in Appeal No. C/T(A)-29/IT-424/ITO-19(1)(3)/16-17. On perusal of the said order of Ld. CIT(A)-NAC, I came to know first time about the previous order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-29, Mumbai dated 18-01-2017 for my manual appeal filed. I was not aware about the order passed for my manual appeal.

4 Girish Narpatchand Kanungo

My said accountant has already left his job and I tried to connect with him. However, I couldn't make contact with my accountant and after that I decided to meet tax consultant known to him. I was totally unaware about the status of assessment and appellate proceedings as / was fully dependent on my accountant. The tax consultant has stated that he had intimated to my accountant about the status of the case from time to time however he didn't updated me. After knowing the facts, I requested him for the further course of action in the impugned matter, he advised me that I should have to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai against the latest CIT order dated 27.02.2024 along with condonation of delay and accordingly I have filed appeal before ITAT, Mumbai. The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai had accepted my request of condonation of delay and heard the matter before SMC Bench, ITAT- Mumbai on 03.06.2025. It was observed during appellate proceedings that I have filed appeal against CIT(Appeals)-NFAC order dated 27.02.2024 (electronic order) instead of original CIT (Appeals) order-29 dated 18.01.2017 (Manual order) on the inadvertent and wrong advice of my tax consultant. During the hearing before the Hon'ble Members of SMC Bench, I was granted liberty to withdraw appeal due to inadvertent mistake which happened un-intentionally and the order has been passed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai "SMC" Bench on 03.06.2025 with directions to file appeal against the Original CIT (Appeal) Order dated 18.01.2017 (Manual Order) instead of latest CIT (Appeals)-FAC Order dated 27.02.2024. I have received, the said order of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai on 23.09.2025 by post. On the direction of Order pronounced on 03.06.2025, 1 am again in appeal before your honour to get natural justice with request to condone the delay in filing of the impugned appeal. 4. I have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us. The assessee has

5 Girish Narpatchand Kanungo

sought condonation of delay of 569 days primarily on the ground that the matter was being looked after by his accountant and tax consultant and that he remained unaware of the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-29, Mumbai dated 18/01/2017. According to the assessee, he came to know about the said order only in December, 2024 upon receipt of a demand notice and thereafter pursued the matter on the advice of his tax consultant. However, the explanation furnished by the assessee does not inspire confidence. The assessee has merely attributed the delay to negligence on the part of his accountant and lack of communication from his tax consultant without placing any cogent material on record to demonstrate that he had exercised due diligence in pursuing the appeal filed by him. An assessee who institutes appellate proceedings is expected to remain vigilant about the status thereof and cannot seek to shift the entire responsibility to his accountant or authorised representative for an indefinite period. The plea of ignorance of the appellate order for several years, unsupported by any contemporaneous evidence, cannot by itself constitute sufficient cause for condoning such an inordinate delay. Even otherwise, the chronology of events reveals prolonged periods of inaction on the part of the assessee for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished. In our considered view, the reasons advanced

6 Girish Narpatchand Kanungo

disclose negligence and lack of due diligence rather than circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. I, therefore, hold that the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 569 days. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. 5. Since I have rejected the application for seeking condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeal is not admitted to be heard on merits and consequently same stands dismissed. 6. Even otherwise no new facts or circumstances have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised and by the assessee stands dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.06.2026

Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER

7 Girish Narpatchand Kanungo

Mumbai, Dated 18/06/2026 Sharath, PS

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Assessee 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →