SANJAY KAUSHALENDRA JHA,THANE vs. WARD 4(4), THANE, THANE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present necessary evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to an addition of Rs.40,85,120/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 138 days, and the appellate order was passed ex-parte on grounds of limitation.
What were the issues?
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and explain the delay in filing the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE
The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2015- 16, date of order 27/06/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (in shot, “the AO”), passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 28/12/2024.
Sanjay Kaushendra Jha 2. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The Ld.AR argued that the assessee’s case was reopened under section 148 of the Act. Finally, the addition was made amount to Rs.40,85,120/- related to profit earned from ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ (in short, LTCG). The aggrieved assesse filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 138 days. The Ld.AR stated that the reason for delay was duly explain before the Ld.CIT(A). But, on the ground of limitation, the appellate order was passed exparte. The assessee was not allowed reasonable opportunity to submit the evidence before the 1st appellate authority.
The Ld. DR argued and stands in favour of the orders of the revenue authorities.
In our considered view, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order after considering the grounds raised by the assessee. However, it is evident that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the assessee to place on record the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration, with specific direction to examine the issue of delay of 139 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The assessee is directed to furnish a proper explanation for the delay, and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider such explanation with due leniency. The Ld. CIT(A) shall further consider all documentary evidence and submissions to be filed by the assessee and adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as not to cause Sanjay Kaushendra Jha prejudice in the proceedings before the appellate authority. It is further directed that the assessee shall diligently cooperate in the set-aside proceedings to facilitate expeditious disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
