ASHISH SANTOSHKUMAR MATHUR,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT. TAXATION) 3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 5024/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 September 2026AY 2013-20144 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding that the assessee had reasonably explained the cause of non-compliance before the CIT(A) and the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the delay was neither intentional nor mala fide. Considering that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and substantial rights of the assessee were involved, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass an order afresh on merit. The CIT(A) was directed to allow a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing the order. Notices of hearing by the CIT(A) were to be served through the e-mail address provided in the order. The assessee was also directed to be more vigilant in future for timely compliance. All grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashish Santoshkumar Mathur, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-57, Mumbai, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) order dismissing his appeal was not properly served. He claimed to have learned about the dismissal only when his refund was adjusted. The assessee, a Non-Resident Indian residing in Britain, explained that non-compliance before the CIT(A) was due to his accountant leaving his job without informing him, leading to a lack of timely follow-up. The assessee argued that the appeal to the Tribunal was filed promptly upon learning of the dismissal and that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The revenue did not dispute the facts presented by the assessee regarding the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal before the Tribunal was filed within the prescribed time, considering the date of communication of the CIT(A)'s order to the assessee? - Assessee's contention: The appeal was filed within time from the date of communication of the dismissal order, as the assessee only became aware of it through refund adjustment and subsequent inquiry. The delay in filing was not intentional or deliberate. - Revenue's contention: The revenue did not contest the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal but suggested that if the delay were condoned, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for timely compliance. 2. Whether the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) regarding the assessment order, including additions under Section 69A and Long Term Capital Gain taxation without Section 54 deduction, should be adjudicated on merit? - Assessee's contention: The assessee has a good case on merit and sought restoration of the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication of all grounds, including issues related to Section 69A and Section 54. - Revenue's contention: The revenue agreed that if the delay was condoned, the matter could be restored to the CIT(A) with a direction for timely compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 147,Section 151,Section 69A,Section 54,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-57 Mumbai dated 12.10.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in law, learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without legal and valid service of notices u/s.250. 2. On the facts and in law, impugned appeal dismissal order was not served on the appellant as per the provisions of the Act 3. Initiation of proceedings by the AO u/s.148/147 without legal and valid jurisdiction. 4. Initiation of proceedings by the AO u/s.148/147 was barred by limitation. 5. Initiation of proceedings by the AO u/s.148/147 without sanction u/s.151. 6. Impugned addition of Rs.2,75,000/- u/s.69A made by the AO is bad in law and required to be quashed.

IT(IT)A No. 5024/Mum/2026 (AY: 2013-14) Ashish Santoshkumar Mathur

7.

AO further erred in taxing Long Term Capital Gain [LTCG] of Rs.1,78,65,916/= on sale of residential flat without giving deduction u/s.54 [1] being reinvestment of such LTCG in purchase of another residential flat. 8. Consequential levy of interest u/s.234A / 234B may kindly be deleted. 9. The Appellant / assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, and/0R withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at 0R before the time of hearing. 10. The Appellant craves leave to refer and rely upon relevant judicial precedents, case laws and/0R judgement as and when produced. 11. The appellant craves leave to file additional documents, evidence, 0R submissions if required at the time of hearing. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that impugned order was passed by ld. CIT(A) on 12.10.2023 for AY 2013-14. The order was not communicated to the assessee. The assessee for the first time came to know about dismissal of his appeal when refund for A.Y. 2024-25 & 2025-26 was adjusted by ITO (IT) – 3(2)(1). The assessee through his Chartered Accountant (C.A.) filed application before ITO on 04.03.2026 objecting such adjustment. When his C.A. was attending the office of ITO on 06.03.2026, he came to know about dismissal of appeal by ld. CIT(A) – 57, Mumbai that his appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 has been dismissed due to non-compliance. The assessee immediately checked ITBA portal and obtained / downloaded the copy of impugned order passed by ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2013-14, and took step for filing present appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that the assessee is non-Resident Indian and staying in Britain. The assessee is having British passport. The assessee has no permanent office or address for communication. On his request his friend Captain K.S. Bagga permit to use his address for correspondence and he also provided one Accountant to look 2

IT(IT)A No. 5024/Mum/2026 (AY: 2013-14) Ashish Santoshkumar Mathur

after and follow up his tax returns. The said C.A. provided by Capt. Bagga left his job and he neither informed me about leaving the job with Capt. Bagga nor provided login ID or password registered with department which resulted non-compliance before ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that present appeal is filed within time from the date of communication of dismissal of appeal, yet on legal advice the assessee has filed his affidavit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that non-compliance before ld. CIT(A) or filing present appeal belatedly is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if his case is heard and decided on merit. The Assessing Officer (AO) while passing the assessment order made addition on account of unexplained credit under section 69A and taxed the long term capital gain without allowing deduction under section 54. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal on merit. He undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance. Further, notice may be issued on the e-mail provided by assessee on Form 36. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that in case, this bench is of the view that delay in filing appal before Tribunal is to be condoned, the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the direction to the assessee to make timely compliance. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also considered the contents of affidavit of assessee for explaining non-compliance before ld CIT(A) and delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. Considering the contents of affidavit and the

IT(IT)A No. 5024/Mum/2026 (AY: 2013-14) Ashish Santoshkumar Mathur

submission of ld. AR of the assessee which we have recorded in para 2 above, we find that the assessee has reasonably explained the cause of non-compliance before ld. CIT(A) and the alleged delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal before Tribunal is not intentional or melafide, hence the delay is condoned. Further, considering the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte, therefore, keeping in view the fact that substantial rights of assessee are involved in the present appeal, therefore, matter is restored back to ld. CIT(A) to pass order afresh on merit. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The notice of hearing of appeal by ld. CIT(A) may be served through e-mail address recorded in array of parties (title) of this order. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance. In the result, all the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced at the time of hearing on 21.09.2026 Sd/- Sd/- GIRISH AGRAWAL PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

MUMBAI, Dated: 21/09/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); By Order (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file.

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai 4

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →