FAIZ AHMAD HASHMI,KANPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICE, WARD 1(3)(1), KANPUR

ITA 337/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 September 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay without proper application of mind and by mechanically rejecting the condonation application. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided reasons for the delay, and the CIT(A) failed to consider these reasons adequately. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not appreciated the detailed submissions made by the assessee regarding the nature of the transactions and the fact that the property purchase was made by a separate legal entity, M/s Signature Property Projects P. Ltd., where the assessee was a director and authorized signatory. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) had failed to address the substantive grounds of appeal concerning the merits of the additions made by the AO. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after considering the condonation application and the grounds of appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Faiz Ahmad Hashmi, is challenging an order passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC, which dismissed his appeal against an assessment order dated 27.03.2022. This assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The AO initiated proceedings based on information that the assessee had undertaken financial transactions totaling Rs. 10,25,99,615/- for the purchase of immovable property in Mumbai and received interest income of Rs. 99,615/- during FY 2016-17. The assessee failed to file a return of income, leading to a notice under section 148. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte, treating the Rs. 10,25,00,000/- investment as unexplained under section 69 and the interest income of Rs. 99,615/- as income from other sources. Penalty proceedings were also initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law by dismissing the assessee's case without providing proper reasons, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and fact by arbitrarily and mechanically rejecting the assessee's condonation application for delay, ignoring sufficient and bona fide reasons beyond the assessee's control, without proper application of mind and cogent reasoning? 3. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and fact by dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay, arbitrarily rejecting the condonation application without appreciating that the proceedings were based on incorrect identity and alleged transactions not attributable to the assessee, and ignoring detailed written submissions? 4. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and fact by upholding the AO's additions to the assessee's income, which was not attributable to or belonging to the appellant, without proper verification and application of mind? 5. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and fact by not appreciating that the AO wrongly clubbed income pertaining to a separate legal entity with the appellant's income, merely because the appellant was a director, without establishing any nexus or ownership? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the case without proper reasons and arbitrarily rejected the condonation application for delay, ignoring valid reasons and principles of natural justice. The assessee contended that the AO made additions for income not attributable to him and wrongly clubbed income of a separate legal entity, M/s Signature Property Projects P. Ltd., where he was a director, without establishing nexus or ownership. The assessment order was passed hastily and mechanically without proper enquiry, verification, or application of mind, violating principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

For Respondent: Dr. Neil Jain, CIT DR
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 17.02.2026, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ld. Assessing Officer passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18 on 27.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in dismissing the case of the assessee without giving proper reasons.

2.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay

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 →