DILIP DEODATTA SHETE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3211/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 June 2025AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause. Regarding the dismissal in limine by the ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal held that even if notices went un-responded, the appeal should have been decided on merits. The Tribunal noted the assessee's counsel's assurance to attend proceedings and furnish all necessary details if given a second opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The specific additions under Section 68 and Section 69 were not decided on merits by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dilip Deodatta Shete, filed an appeal against the order dated 16/05/2023 passed by the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee's grievance was that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and also erred in treating 50% of the investment in a flat owned by the assessee's wife as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 26,00,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine after issuing four notices, which went un-responded.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay can be condoned under Section 68 of the Act. 2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without deciding the same on merits, despite the assessee being prevented by reasonable cause. Assessee's contentions: The assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable and sufficient cause, and therefore, the delay should be condoned. The assessee also argued that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits even if notices went un-responded, and sought a second opportunity to attend proceedings and furnish necessary details. The assessee relied on the assurance that they would attend proceedings and furnish all necessary details to defend the case if given a second opportunity. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue regarding the limitation or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K(SMC

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Milind Sasrabudhe, A/R
For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. D/R
Hearing: 23/06/2024Pronounced: 23/06/2024

आदेश/O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 16/05/2023 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2016-17.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act and further erred in treating 50% of the investment in flat owned by the wife of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act amounting to Rs. 26,00,000/-.

3.

Appeal is barred by limitation. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal. We have carefully considered the contents of the affidavit and are satisfied that 2 the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time. Therefore, the delay is condoned.

4.

We have carefully perused the order of the ld. CIT(A). We find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine after issuing four notices.

5.

We are of the considered view that even if the notice went un- responded, then also the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assured that if given a second opportunity, he will attend the proceedings and furnish all necessary details to defend the case. On such concession, we remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to attend the proceedings and furnish all the necessary details along with the supporting evidence and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh on considering the merits of the case and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →