MOHD FIROZ,KANPUR vs. ITO,, KANPUR

ITA 18/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 September 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, noting that the assessee had submitted purchase invoices, bilti, bank statements, and ledger accounts before the Assessing Officer. The assessee had also sought to introduce further evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not passed an order on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the issue on its merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to make necessary submissions to satisfy the CIT(A) regarding the genuineness of the purchases, and the CIT(A) was instructed to consider these evidences and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. The issue of whether the purchases were bogus was expressly left undecided by the Tribunal, as the primary decision was to restore the appeal for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mohd Firoz, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC dated 25.11.2025, which dismissed his appeal against the Assessing Officer's order dated 22.02.2024 for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 1,02,73,478/- on account of alleged bogus purchases from M/s Sushil Kumar Agarwal & Sons, a concern identified as issuing fraudulent GST invoices. The assessee had provided purchase invoices, bilti, bank statements, and ledger accounts, but the AO disallowed the purchases for lack of E-Way bills, transport bills, stock register, GST returns, and sales bills. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 34-day delay, citing lack of documentary evidence for the claimed illness of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts by dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without considering the assessee's bona fide and reasonable cause for the delay, as per the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits, despite the assessee filing detailed written submissions? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to illness (viral fever, cold, and cough) and that a medical certificate was filed, which the CIT(A) failed to consider. The assessee also contended that he was not well-versed in income tax matters and that the email address used for communication was managed by an advocate. The assessee claimed the assessment order was not received physically and that he could not monitor the ITBA portal due to illness. The assessee further argued that the CIT(A)'s order was mechanical, non-speaking, and contrary to judicial precedents that favor deciding matters on merits rather than technicalities. The assessee prayed for the appeal to be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the assessee had not submitted sufficient evidence before the Assessing Officer to prove the physical movement of goods, justifying the addition. The Revenue also contended that the assessee was negligent in filing the appeal on time, and therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 37,Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 24.09.2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 25.11.2025, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2019-20 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.02.2024. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Dismissal of Appeal on Technical Ground The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)") has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating that the appellant had shown a bona fide and reasonable cause for the delay.

2.

Non-condonation of Delay - Arbitrary and Unjustified The le

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 →