VIPIN SHERSINGH ARGARWAL,CHEMBUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8(2)(1), M.K. ROAD MUMBAI

ITA 684/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 October 2026AY 2014-156 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vipin Shersingh Agarwal, filed appeals for Assessment Years (AY) 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 against orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 28th October 2025. The appeals were filed with a delay of 24 days. The assessee's representative stated that the delay was unintentional, as the assessee was unaware of the CIT(A)'s order until January 2026. The assessee admitted to not filing complete details and evidence supporting the claim of Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) which was treated as a penny stock transaction. The assessee sought an opportunity to contest the case on merit before the CIT(A). The revenue's representative acknowledged the delay but argued on merit that the Assessing Officer had provided sufficient material to prove the LTCG was bogus due to penny stock transactions.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals, finding it neither intentional nor deliberate, and prioritizing substantial justice over technical considerations. Regarding the merit of the case, the Tribunal noted the assessee's limited prayer for one more opportunity to file complete submissions and documentary evidence before the CIT(A), as the assessee had not filed complete details earlier. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order recorded the assessee's written submissions but did not detail their contents. Considering that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate all grounds of appeal afresh. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of not being aware of the CIT(A)'s order, and whether substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. - Assessee's contention: The delay was unintentional and due to lack of information about the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee seeks condonation to contest the case on merit. - Revenue's contention: The revenue did not seriously oppose the condonation of delay. 2. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present complete submissions and evidence before the CIT(A) to contest the additions made under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning Long-Term Capital Gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) and unexplained expenditure. - Assessee's contention: The assessee could not file complete details and evidence before the CIT(A) and seeks one more opportunity to contest the case on merit by filing complete submissions and documentary evidence. - Revenue's contention: The Assessing Officer demonstrated the modus operandi of penny stock transactions, and the assessee is a beneficiary of such bogus transactions, supported by sufficient material on record.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C,Section 10(38),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHAAND

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh
For Respondent: Shri Munikoti Ravitaja
Hearing: 05.10.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

Per : Rakesh Kumar Lodha, Accountant Member:

These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A)/NFAC, both dated 28th October 2025 , passed under section 250 of the Act. In both the appeals, the Assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeal, certain facts in both the appeals are common. Thus, with the consent of both the parties, both the appeals were clubbed together and are decided by common order.

2.

For appreciation of facts, the fact in appeal AY

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 68

All 29,634 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →