PRASAD NARAYAN DHULAP,KAMOTHE PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(2)(1), VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4120/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 July 2025AY 2011-2012Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 655 days in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's age, ill health, and bonafide reasons. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file their return of income for AY 2011-12. The case was reopened based on information about immovable property purchase, and an assessment was completed ex-parte by adding Rs. 31,41,900/- as unexplained investment. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was also dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned and the matter remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 144,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

Hearing: 28.07.2025Pronounced: 30.07.2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 08/06/2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

1. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal filed the appellant on the grounds of non-compliance without adjudicating the appeal on merits.

AY 2011-12 Prasad Narayan Dhulap 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that notice u/s 148 has been issued in a mechanical manner without any evidence that the appellant had made any investment in the immovable property, where he was only a second holder, his mother being the first holder.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that appellant was around 19 years of age and pursuing his studies in the financial year relevant to AY 2011-12 and had no taxable income.

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that addition of entire investment of Rs.31,41,900/- made u/s 69A of Income Tax Act in the hands of the appellant was unjustified.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the addition of Rs.1,60,000/- is made by the assessing officer only on surmise and guess work that the basic exemption limit of Rs.1,60,000/- is consumed by the appellant. The appellant seeks leave to add, modify or delete any grounds of appeal.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for AY 2011-12. On the basis of information available with the department regarding purchase of immovable property, the case was reopened and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 28.03.2018. As there was no compliance by the assessee to various notices issued by Ld. AO, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147, after adding Rs. 31,41,900/- u/s. 69A of the Act, being unexplained investment in the immovable property. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As no compliance was made to various notices issued by Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed ex-parte vide order dated 08.06.2023. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

AY 2011-12 Prasad Narayan Dhulap 4. At the outset it is noticed that the appeal is delayed by 655 days. An affidavit or condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee explaining the circumstances resulting in the inordinate delay. Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee was around 19 years of age at the relevant time and could not understand and attend to the tax proceedings properly. He has also explained in the affidavit that he had engaged a counsel for attending to the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. However, he could not take requisite action due to his age and ill health. The assessee came to know about the ex-parte dismissal of his appeal by Ld. CIT(A) upon receiving show cause notice for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. He there enquired from his tax consultant regarding the status of appellate proceedings and thereafter, engaged another counsel to handle the matter. By this time, a delay of 655 days had occurred in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal by the new counsel. Since the delay is due to bonafide reasons Ld. AR has requested for condonation of the same and restoration of appeal for fresh decision by Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that there is no plausible explanation supported by the documentary evidence to justify the inordinate delay in filing of appeal and therefore, request for condonation of delay ought to be rejected.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that it is a case of genuine and bonafide delay due to peculiar fact and circumstances as explained in the affidavit. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 655 days and remand AY 2011-12 Prasad Narayan Dhulap the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025.

Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 30.07.2025 दिव्य रमेश न ुंिग वकर/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →