MAUN SAT CASTINGS PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

ITA 298/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 September 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 490 days in filing the appeal. It found that the averments made by the assessee, supported by documents like SARFAESI proceedings and a death certificate, constituted reasonable cause for the Director's failure to prosecute the case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to remain vigilant and present its case promptly. The appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The specific grounds concerning the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147, procedural infirmities under Section 144B, confirmation of additions under Section 69C, application of Section 115BBE, levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, and initiation of penalty under Section 271AAC were not decided on merits by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Maun Sat Castings Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.07.2024, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was filed with a delay of 490 days. The assessee contended that the delay was caused due to severe financial distress, including SARFAESI proceedings and the death of the Director's mother, leading to the Director's mental and financial distress, which resulted in an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) and inability to prosecute the case. The Revenue relied on the findings of the authorities below.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned? - Assessee's contention: The delay was caused by severe financial and mental distress of the Director due to SARFAESI proceedings and the death of his mother, preventing proper prosecution of the case before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the findings of the authorities below, implying no specific argument was made regarding condonation of delay or the merits of the delay. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte and non-speaking order, failing to deal with the assessee's contentions and affirming the Assessing Officer's action without independent inquiry? - Assessee's contention: The CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and cryptic, lacking independent application of mind and failing to address the grounds raised. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the findings of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GANGADHAR PANDA

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, AR, Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 28/09/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 29.07.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. ITA No.298/Ahd/2026 [Maun Sat Casting Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Y. 2018-19 - 2 –

2.

The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal

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 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →