← Back to search

MADHU KACHHARAM ACHHRA (HUF),ULHASNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN

PDF
ITA 8511/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 March 20263 pages

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH“D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. AR.
For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR).
Hearing: 11.03.2026Pronounced: 11.03.2026

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 16.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/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. 2013-14. 2
MADHU KACHHARAM ACHHRA (HUF)

2.

In the instant case, the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order, in Para No.1 and in the body of the impugned order, has repeated the fact that the Assessee has filed an appeal on dated 27.01.2019 against the Assessment Order dated 21.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. However, at last the same was dismissed by holding that the Assessee had filed the 1st appeal on 27.02.2019, and thus there was a delay of 68 days in filing the same.

3.

Admittedly, there was no delay at all, in filing the 1st appeal, as attributed by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order, which is in fact contrary to the Form No.35 as well as body of the impugned order.

4.

Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say, by affording an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

5.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, that this is an old appeal and substantive time has already been taken by the Ld. Commissioner in deciding the same, but still he dismissed the same in limine, we deem it appropriate and therefore

3
MADHU KACHHARAM ACHHRA (HUF) direct the Ld. Commissioner to expedite this appeal and to pass an appropriate order, within 6 months from the receipt of this order.

6.

The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and file the relevant submissions/documents, which would be essentially required, and shall not cause any undue delay, otherwise, 6 months’ time limit would not be applicable.

7.

In the result Assessee’s appeal is allowed statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.03.2026. (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (Narender Kumar Choudhry)
Accountant Member Judicial Member

M. Ranganath Vithal
Sr. Private Secretary.

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1.

The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. 5. Guard File CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.

MADHU KACHHARAM ACHHRA (HUF),ULHASNAGAR vs ITO, WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN | BharatTax