MOHAMMED SATTAR KHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2868/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 October 2026AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee's explanation of illness was found plausible and not disproven. This, coupled with the ex parte assessment, was considered sufficient cause for the delay. Since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with the bank-wise information and other materials relied upon, verify account ownership and relevant periods, and reconcile discrepancies in figures. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to explain the deposits and credits and furnish supporting material. The Assessing Officer is to pass a speaking order thereafter. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the addition.

What were the facts?

The appeal by Mohammed Sattar Khan (assessee) is against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2010-11. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, noting it was filed 49 days late. The original assessment, made under section 147 read with section 144, included an addition of ₹80,45,180 on account of deposits and credits in HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank accounts. The assessee contended that the delay was due to illness and that he was unaware of the ex parte assessment proceedings as he is illiterate. He also disputed the bank particulars, stating he did not have an ICICI account and the HDFC account was opened later. The Tribunal noted significant discrepancies in the figures presented by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2010-11, under section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is liable to be condoned on the grounds of illness and lack of awareness of proceedings? Assessee's Contentions: - The delay of 49 days was caused by the assessee suffering from fever and being unwell, preventing him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. - The assessment was completed ex parte, and the assessee, being illiterate, was unaware of the income-tax portal notices and email communications. - The assessee disputes the bank particulars relied upon by the Assessing Officer, claiming the HDFC account was opened later and he did not maintain an ICICI Bank account. - The assessee seeks condonation of delay and a fresh opportunity to explain the additions. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the condonation of delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 249

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Singh
For Respondent: Ms. Rupa Dhande, SR AR
Hearing: 14/10/2026Pronounced: 15/10/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

This appeal is directed against the order dated 20 July 2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, in relation to the assessment made under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2010–11. The assessment included an addition of ₹80,45,180 on account of

2 ITA No.2868/Mum/2026 Mohammed Sattar Khan deposits and credits stated to have been made in bank accounts with HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank. The learned CIT(A), however, did not adjudicate the grounds on their merits and dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that it had been filed 49 days late.

2.

The learned counsel submitted that the delay occurred because the assessee was suffering from fever and was unwell, and was thereby prevented from taking the necessary steps to file the appeal within the prescribed period. It was further submitted that the assessment itself had been completed ex parte; the assessee, who is illiterate, was unaware of the proceedings and of notices issued through the income-tax portal and by email. The assessee also disputes the bank particulars relied upon by the Assessing Officer, stating that the HDFC Bank account was opened later and that he did not maintain an account with ICICI Bank. On these grounds, the learned counsel sought condonation of the delay and a fresh opportunity to explain the information on which the addition rests.

3.

We have considered the explanation for the delay and the circumstances placed before us. The delay is 49 days. The assessee’s explanation that illness prevented timely filing is plausible and has not been shown to be otherwise. Considered alongside the fact that the assessment was also completed ex parte, it constitutes sufficient cause for the delay. The delay in

3 ITA No.2868/Mum/2026 Mohammed Sattar Khan filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is accordingly condoned. Since the appeal was dismissed on limitation, the assessee’s grounds concerning the bank accounts and the addition were not examined on their merits.

4.

The assessment order states that reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of AIR information showing cash deposits of ₹32,89,015 in an HDFC Bank account, and that a notice under section 148 was issued on 30 March 2017. The Assessing Officer subsequently obtained information under section 133(6) from HDFC Bank, Central Bank of India and ICICI Bank. The figures reproduced in the assessment order are:

Bank Cash Deposits Other Credits HDFC Bank Ltd. Rs.33,34,015 Rs.9,33,209 Central Bank of Nil Nil India ICICI Bank Ltd. Rs. 7,21,115 Rs. 30,56,686 Total Rs.40,55,130 Rs.39,89,895

4.1. The assessee’s denial of the accounts and his objection to the period to which the deposits relate call for verification against the underlying bank records. The assessment extract itself also requires reconciliation: the AIR figure for HDFC Bank differs from the amount in the bank-wise table; the table refers to Financial Year 2014–15, while the assessment is for Assessment Year 2010–11 and the discussion below the table

4 ITA No.2868/Mum/2026 Mohammed Sattar Khan refers to Financial Year 2009–10; and the figures in the table total ₹80,45,025, whereas the addition is stated to be ₹80,45,180. These differences are material to identifying the transactions considered by the Assessing Officer and cannot be left unresolved.

5.

In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall first place before the assessee the bank-wise information and other material relied upon, verify the ownership of the accounts and the relevant period, and reconcile the discrepancies in the figures. The assessee shall be afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity to explain the deposits and credits and to furnish supporting material. After considering the assessee’s explanation and the material on record, the Assessing Officer shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law. We express no opinion on the merits of the addition.

6.

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 15th October, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (G.M. DOSS) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 15/10/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

5 ITA No.2868/Mum/2026 Mohammed Sattar Khan

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV ANANT ANANT GAVANDE GAVANDE Date: 2026.10.28 15:18:50 +05'30' (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →