JAI BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS AND RK MADHANI CO,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1366/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 April 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. The Tribunal found the reasons for delay to be genuine and unintentional, and therefore remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the Ld. Commissioner was dismissed for want of limitation. The assessee sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, citing reasons related to a change in accountant and missed notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner should be condoned. Whether the Ld. Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI JAGADISH

For Respondent: Shri. Pitamber Kumar, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 27.04.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.11.2025, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

Considering the reasons stated by the assessee for condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the instant appeal, as reasonable, plausible and unintentional, the delay is condoned.

3.

Coming to the merits of appeal filed by the assessee, it is observed that the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, against the assessment order dated 30.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, whereby the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenditure of Rs. 43,98,624/- and commission expenditure of Rs. 10,41,341/- and added back to the total income of the assessee. We observe from the impugned order that the Ld. Commissioner though issued deficiency notice u/s. 250 of the Act directing the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay setting out the reasons, which prevented the filing of the appeal within the statutory time. However, the assessee failed to comply with the such notice and/or failed to file any condonation petition nor furnished any explanation or supporting material demonstrating the existence of ‘sufficient cause’ as required u/s. 249(3) of the Act. Thus, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of limitation.

4.

Before us, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 43 days in filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and demonstrated the reasons stated below:

“That the assessee though preferred first appeal against the assessment order dated 30.03.2016, on dated 13.06.2016. However, cognizance of the same was taken after approximately 9 years by issuing the notice dated 14.11.2025, intimating the delay. Somehow new accountant Mr. Pravin Arondekar, missed the notice and was under the belief that fresh notice would be issued but somehow, thereafter, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without issuing any further notice to the assessee. The assessee in the application for condonation of delay has also stated that it has received the assessment order through email dated 30.03.2016 and was under the belief that Mr. Milan Mehta, Accountant, had complied with the filing of an appeal in consultation with the Chartered Accountant. However, Mr. Mehta abruptly left office of the assessee in June, 2016 and thereafter, the assessee immediately appointed Mr. Pravin Arondekar to look after the taxation and accounts compliance, who upon verifying the file, realized that the appeal for assessment year under consideration had not been filed and therefore, Mr. Pravin Arondekar immediately contacted the Chartered Accountant and filed the appeal on 13.06.2016 accordingly, however, with the delay of 43 days. The delay was neither intentional nor malafide but because of the aforesaid reasons. The assessee also supported the above reasons with duly sworn affidavit as well as medical certificate.” 5. The Ld. DR on the contrary, refuted the claim of the assessee and objected to allowing the condonation of delay of 43 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner.

6.

Having considered the reasons stated by the assessee on the condonation of delay which are otherwise supported with duly sworn affidavit as genuine, bonafide and unintentional, the delay is condoned.

7.

Coming to the merits of the case as observed above, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine and/or want of limitation and/or without going into merits of the case thus for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit. Suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submission/documents, as would be required. We clarify that in case of any subsequent default, the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 27.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/-/- JAGADISH NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27.04.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS Copy to:

JAI BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS AND RK MADHANI CO, 1 68/70, C.P. TANK ROAD, C.P. TANK, MUMBAI - 400004, MAHARASHTRA ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(1), MUMBAI , 2 ROOM NO. 506, 5TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LALBAUGH, PAREL, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →