DINESH S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 876/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 November 2021AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitted additional evidence, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate their claim promptly.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-attendance. The assessee sought condonation of a 820-day delay, citing the death of his uncle who managed investments and the subsequent difficulty in gathering details.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and if additional evidence should be admitted for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria & Shri Ashok Sharma – Ld. ARs
For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal – Ld. Sr. DR

आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पुंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai.

Sr. No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictation sheets are attached Directly Typed Sr.PS/PS on Computer / Laptop 2 Draft dictated on Not Applicable/ Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft Placed before author Not Applicable Sr.PS/PS 4 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 5 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 6 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 02.11.2021 Sr.PS/PS 7 Order pronouncement on 01.11.2021 Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to the Bench Clerk 02.11.2021 Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the AR 11 Date of Dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →