BIPIN RAJENDRA GAMRE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9062/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 April 2026AY 2017-185 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and rejected the assessee's appeal. No cogent reasons were provided by the assessee to justify the delay in filing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 874 days. The assessee was also ex parte before the Assessing Officer, leading to an ex parte assessment order. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal due to the substantial delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable and whether the penalty under Section 271F was leviable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari ( SR. AR.)
Hearing: 05.03.2026Pronounced: 01.04.2026

Bipin Rajendra Gamre Vs. ITO-Ward 22(1)(1), 11/86 Anand Nagar, G N Mumbai Marg Santacruz East, Room No. 319, 3rd Mumbai - 400055 Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel Mumbai - 400012 PAN/GIR No. APKPG0523R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Swapnil Choudhari ( SR. AR.) Date of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 01.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Now we first take up the for A.Y. 2017-18, raising following grounds:

“1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay of 874 days, without appreciating that the delay occurred due to genuine and reasonable cause, namely the appellant being completely unaware of the assessment proceedings and the impugned order passed on 25.05.2023.

2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty of ₹5,000 under section 271F for non-filing of return. Requesting Your Honor, to delete the addition made by the Id AO

3. All the Grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to each other 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, and amend the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. ”

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out repeatedly. From the case records, we note that summons in this case were sent by the Registry through speed post as well as email. More than one month has passed since the summons were issued at the address provided by the assessee in Form 36; therefore, drawing an inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that service of summons/notice has been duly effected.

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments; therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex parte.

5.

From the records, we also note that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was rejected due to a delay of 874 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A), in a detailed order, categorically mentioned that there was a substantial delay in filing the appeal.

6.

Apart from this, the assessee was also ex parte before the Assessing Officer; therefore, the assessment order under Section 144 of the Act was passed. Even despite a substantial delay of more than two years, the assessee has not brought forth any cogent or convincing reasons to establish that the assessee was prevented by sufficient or reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time before the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

Thus, on the basis of these findings, the appeal was rejected. Now, before us also, no new facts or circumstances have been brought on record to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A).

8.

Therefore, we uphold the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the appeal filed by the assessee.

(Assessment Year: 2017-18); (Assessment Year: 2017-18) And (Assessment Year: 2017- 18) 9. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to for the A.Y 2017-18 (except variance in days of delay), therefore, the decision rendered in above paragraphs would apply mutatis mutandis for these appeals also. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.04.2026

More judgments on Section 271F

All 927 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →