MAHESHWARI BROTHERS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4115/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2026AY 2008-098 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Maheshwari Brothers, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 06.03.2026 for AY 2008-09. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine due to delay. The original assessment order under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed by ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai, on 18.03.2016, making an addition of Rs. 1,23,00,076/-. The assessee claimed that the assessment order and notice of demand u/s 156 were served on 06.06.2023, and the appeal was filed on 12.06.2023, alleging no delay. However, the CIT(A) noted a delay of 1,890 days and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without adjudicating the merits. The Tribunal noted that the notice under section 143(2) for AY 2007-08 was issued at the assessee's new address, indicating the AO's awareness of the address change. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the assessment order was not received at the new address and that the relevant documents were subsequently obtained, leading to the delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was condoned in the interest of substantial justice. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed ex parte and the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee was not examined on merits by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the documentary evidence, afford an opportunity of being heard, and adjudicate the issues afresh on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the de novo proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal by holding that the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay, disregarding that the notice of demand u/s 156 was served on 06.06.2023 and the appeal was filed on 12.06.2023, thus alleging no delay? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits due to alleged delay, disregarding the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence? (Question of fact and law) 3. Whether the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is bad in law, as jurisdiction should have been under section 153C due to information found during search operations on related groups? (Question of law) 4. Whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO u/s 147 was bad in law as the conditions for initiating reassessment proceedings were not fulfilled? (Question of law) 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal and confirming the addition of Rs. 1,23,00,076/- by treating genuine purchases as non-genuine, despite documentary evidence and payments through banking channels? (Question of fact and law) 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal and confirming the addition, leading to double taxation as profits on these purchases were offered to tax? (Question of fact and law) Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond its control, specifically the sale of its old premises and non-receipt of the assessment order and notices at the new address. A notice u/s 143(2) for AY 2007-08 was received at the new address, indicating the AO was aware of the change. - The assessment order dated 18.03.2016 was never received at the new address. The assessee came to know about the outstanding demand on 17.02.2023 via email and subsequently obtained a copy of the assessment order on 06.06.2023, leading to the appeal filing. - The Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the detailed written submissions and documentary evidence. - The assessment order u/s 147 is bad in law, and jurisdiction should have been under section 153C, citing the non-obstante clause of section 153C. - The conditions for initiating reassessment u/s 147 were not fulfilled. - The purchases were genuine, supported by documentary evidence and banking channel payments. - The addition resulted in double taxation as profits were already offered. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case, other than the observation by the CIT(A) that the address was the same in all correspondences.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 156,Section 249(3),Section 143(2),Section 153C,Section 143(3),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, CIT DR
Hearing: 29.09.2026

Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 06.03.2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09, arises from the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 18.03.2016, passed by ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai [in short, “the Ld. AO”]. Maheshwari Brothers

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admit

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →