BHARAT THAKRYA THAKUR,NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

ITA 6021/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2026AY 2018-199 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bharat Thakrya Thakur, filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2021-22. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues. For AY 2018-19, the assessee's return was processed under Section 143(1) by CPC, Bengaluru, which made an adjustment of Rs. 16,38,930/- under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) for delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution. The intimation was issued in March/April 2020. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 24.02.2026, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal in limine, without adjudicating the grounds on merits, citing the delay as substantial and the explanation for delay as insufficient. The assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The intimation under Section 143(1) was issued in March/April 2020, and the appeal was filed on 24.02.2026, representing a delay of several years. The assessee's explanation of being unaware of the demand until recovery proceedings were initiated in January 2026 was not considered satisfactory, especially given the lapse of several years. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided any material to show non-receipt of the intimation through the registered electronic mode or any technical impediment. The arguments regarding the merits of the disallowance, including the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. and legislative amendments, were deemed irrelevant to explaining the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order declining to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. Since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds on merits, the Tribunal also did not consider it appropriate to examine those issues for the first time and dismissed them as infructuous. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently dismissing the same in limine, considering the provisions of Section 249(2) and 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention (as reflected in grounds of appeal and arguments for condonation): The assessee argued that the delay was due to a bona fide belief that the return was processed as filed, unaware of the demand until recovery proceedings were initiated in January 2026. The assessee also highlighted the debatable legal position regarding delayed deposit of employee contributions, subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, and contended that the amendment to Section 29 was curative and retrospective. The assessee also raised issues about the jurisdiction of CPC and the basis of disallowance. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that the appeal was filed after an extraordinary delay, and the assessee failed to provide a cogent or substantiated explanation. The Revenue emphasized that statutory communications are available in the e-filing account and the assessee did not provide material to establish non-receipt, technical failure, or sufficient cause for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 249(2),Section 249(3),Section 29

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER BENCH:

These four appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), bearing DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1087743190(1) dated 23-Mar-2026 for Assessment Year 2018-19, DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1087743972(1) dated 23-Mar-2026 for Assessment Year 2019-20, DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1087744490(1) dated 23-Mar-2026 for Assessment Year 2020-21, and

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 36(1)(va)

All 6,018 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →