YOGESH RAVINDRA MATHURIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 42(1)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to justify the delay. The principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2010-11 was dismissed. The grounds raised included violation of natural justice, appeal filed within statutory time limit, condonation of delay, and various additions confirmed by the AO. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and whether the principles of natural justice were violated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE
Assessee by : Shri Viraj Mehta, A/R Revenue by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 15/04/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2010-11.
The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1) Ground No. 1: Violation of Natural Justice On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Said addition confirmed is bad in law and liable to be deleted as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. 2) Ground No. 2: Appeal filed within statutory time limit On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that appeal filed is delayed by 56 days and no explanation has been offered however, there is no delay is filing the appeal. Said rejection of appeal is bad in law and additions are liable to be deleted as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice.
2 3) Without prejudice to above ground, Ground No. 3: Condonation of Delay On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the appeal on account that no condonation of delay for filing appeal is filed. Said denial is bad in law and additions are liable to be deleted as order is passed without opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice.
4) Ground No. 4: Addition as IFHP of Rs. 50,400/- On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer under the head House Property of Rs. 50,400/-. Such confirmation of addition by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and erroneous in facts and thereby addition be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 50,400/-.
5) Ground No. 5: LTCG of Rs. 17,13,966/- On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer under the head LTCG of Rs. 17,13,966/-. Such confirmation of addition by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and erroneous in facts and thereby addition be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 17,13,966/-.
6) Ground No. 6: STCG of Rs. 43,03,521/- On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer under the head STCG of Rs. 43,03,521/-. Such confirmation of addition by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and erroneous in facts and thereby addition be directed to delete the addition of Rs. 43,03,521/-.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind or amend any of the above grounds of appeal
.”
3. Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. The order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that there was delay in filing the appeal by 56 days. The ld. CIT(A) was of the firm belief that the assessee ought to have satisfactorily explained the dela in filing the appeal. However, before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly contended that there was no delay in filing the appeal and because the assessee could not receive the notice issued by the ld. CIT(A), the proceedings, could not be attended. We further find that on the pretext that the appeal was barred by limitation, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- 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 Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
