SAVANNAH PHOENIX PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 297/MUM/2025Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 March 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it in limine. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed late by 111 days. The assessee challenged an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs.1,25,76,245/- under Section 68 of the Act and also questioned the validity of reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine, and whether the reassessment proceedings were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/R
Hearing: 13/03/2025Pronounced: 13/03/2025

O R D E R

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →