ABDUL TASLIM ABDUL QQUAYYUM,KARAJGAON, CHANDUR BAZAR vs. D.C.I.T., AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

ITA 700/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 October 20263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illness and subsequent technical issues as reasonable causes, and relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Regarding the substantive issues of unexplained investment and undisclosed income, the Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide adequate submissions and evidence before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to be vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Abdul Taslim Abdul Qquayyum, Bismilla, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 11.03.2026, which arose from an assessment order dated 14.03.2024 passed under sections 147 read with 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeal was filed with a delay of 37 days, attributed to the assessee's illness and subsequent issues with obtaining a digital signature. The assessee's grievances pertained to an addition of Rs. 16,21,800/- for unexplained investment in immovable property and an addition of Rs. 60,000/- for undisclosed income. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal, and the Department was represented by the Senior DR.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is liable to be condoned? (Question of procedure, relying on judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court). 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 16,21,800/- towards unexplained investment in immovable property under section 69 of the Act is justified? (Question of law and fact, relying on section 69). 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 60,000/- towards undisclosed income is justified? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's contentions: The assessee did not appear to present any arguments. The judgment notes that the assessee failed to reply to the Ld. CIT(A) and did not file supportive documentary evidence, even during assessment proceedings. Revenue's contentions: The Senior DR did not raise any strong objections to the assessee's request for an opportunity to present documents. No specific authorities, circulars, or precedents were mentioned by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

Hearing: 13/10/2026Pronounced: 15/10/2026

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 11.03.2026 passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 14.03.2024 passed u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal. Application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit is placed on record. The main reason for delay is that assessee became sick and was unable to travel to Amravati for filing appeal and subsequently further delay was for want of digital signature. Considering it to be a reasonable cause and in the interest of justice and taking guidance f

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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →