BADALPUR CHARITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to a deposit, and set aside the ex-parte order. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 254 days, which was attributed to the accountant's negligence. The assessee had also failed to make proper compliances before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) despite opportunities, leading to an ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable, and whether the ex-parte order passed by the lower authority warrants a remand for a decision on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.05.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2010-11.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 254 days in filing of instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that due to negligence of its accountant the delay of 254 days has been occurred, as it also appears from the impugned order that the same has been passed as ex-parte. Though no document is available on record with regard to the contention raised qua condonation of delay, however, considering the fact as appears from the impugned order, the contention raised by the Assessee prima-facie appears to be bonafide and genuine qua condonation of delay, as also not refuted by the Ld. D.R., thus the delay is condoned, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in Revenue Department under “other heads”.
Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 26.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.1,10,00,000/- on account of corpus donation received.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of affording multiple opportunities, made no compliance. As observed above, the Assessee has levelled allegations against his accountant, who was handling the taxation matters of the Assessee, did not make compliances which resulted into passing the impugned order as ex- parte. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances specific to the effect as well that the issue involved in the first appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner, remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner and the Assessee also remained un-represented and/or submissions/ documents also remained to be filed, which resulted into non- adjudication of the issue involved in its right perspective and proper manner. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to deposit of Rs.5000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner, for decision afresh in the aforesaid terms.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09.07.2025.
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 →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026