FAZLURRAHMAN WARIS ALI CHOUDHARY,THANE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

ITA 5506/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2026AY 2011-1211 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Fazlurrahman Waris Ali Choudhary, filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order dated 06.03.2026 for AY 2011-12. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as delayed by 685 days, refusing to condone the delay. The original assessment order dated 27.03.2015 was passed by the AO under section 144 read with section 147, making an addition of Rs. 48,75,009/- for alleged bogus purchases. The assessee claimed the assessment order and notice of demand were never served, and he only became aware of the assessment in February 2017, obtaining a certified copy thereafter. The CIT(A) rejected the explanation, citing lack of evidence for demolition of business premises and the date of obtaining the assessment order copy.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without properly ascertaining the date of service of the assessment order and notice of demand. The Tribunal noted that the impugned appellate order did not contain any material establishing the service of the assessment order or notice of demand in March 2015 or before February 2017. The fact that a copy of the assessment order was issued on 14.02.2017, as recorded in the CIT(A)'s order, was seen as corroborative of the assessee's claim of acquiring knowledge in February 2017. The Tribunal found that the delay, if any, was condonable, as the assessee had shown sufficient cause. The principle of substantial justice was emphasized. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication on merits, including the validity of reassessment, service of notices, and the addition of Rs. 48,75,009/-. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the reassessment or the addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in failing to condone the delay of 685 days in filing the appeal, as required by Section 249(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in failing to consider the merits of the case, including the validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the addition of Rs. 48,75,009/- for bogus purchases, and the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and interest under Sections 234A/B/C/D. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessment order and notice of demand were not served. - The business premises were demolished by the Thane Municipal Corporation, leading to non-receipt of notices. - The assessee obtained a certified copy of the assessment order in February 2017, and the appeal was filed within 30 days of acquiring knowledge. - Relied on the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, citing Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue did not explicitly present arguments in the provided text, but the CIT(A)'s order, which the Tribunal is reviewing, rejected the assessee's explanation for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 147,Section 139,Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 249(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Brahme, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Hearing: 21.09.2026Pronounced: 22.09.2026

PER: MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], for the assessment year 2011-12. The impugned appellate order arises from the assessment order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Thane

2 Fazlurrahman Waris Ali Choudhary

[hereinafter referred to as "Assessing Officer or AO"], under secti

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 →