MAHESH PRAKASH BENDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“D” BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT &
SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mahesh Prakash
Bende
302, 3rd Floor, Prithvi
Park, Sector-30, Vashi
Navi Mumbai-400 075
Vs.
ITO Circle - 27(2),
4th Floor, Tower No. 6,
IT Office, Vashi
Railway Station
Building, Navi Mubmai
– 400 703
PAN/GIR No. ALNPB2531M
(Applicant)
(Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR
Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. DR
Date of Hearing
25.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement
20.03.2026
आदेश / ORDER
PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:
The present appeal is directed against the order dated
30.09.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals),
National
Faceless
Appeal
Centre
(NFAC),
Delhi[hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] for the Assessment Year 2015–16, arising out of the assessment order
2
Mahesh Prakash Bende dated 26.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act.
Facts of the Case
2. The assessee is an individual. As per information available with the Department under the Non-filer Monitoring System
(NMS), the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. However, as per the information gathered from the system, the assessee had entered into financial transactions during the relevant previous year, inter alia, receiving contract receipts of Rs. 4,09,16,374/- and salary income of Rs. 18,00,000/-, aggregating to Rs. 4,27,16,374/-.On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, after obtaining approval under section 151 of the Act, a notice under section 148 dated 22.03.2021 was issued to the assessee requiring him to file the return of income. However, no compliance was made by the assessee. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) were issued calling for details. The case was transferred to the National Faceless Assessment Centre under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. Despite service of notices, including through the Verification Unit, no response was received from the assessee. Thereafter, a final opportunity was granted by issuing notice under section 144, which also remained un- complied with. In view of the persistent non-compliance, the 3
Mahesh Prakash Bende
Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 on a best judgment basis.
3. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had received contract receipts of Rs.
4,09,16,374/-, which remained unexplained. The said receipts were added to the turnover and the profit was estimated by applying the net profit rate of 4.76%, resulting in an addition of Rs. 38,23,291/-.Further, the Assessing
Officer observed that the assessee had received salary income of Rs. 18,00,000/-, which was also not disclosed by filing any return of income. In the absence of any explanation, the same was treated as income of the assessee. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 56,23,291/-, comprising net profit on estimated basis: Rs. 38,23,291/- and Salary income: Rs. 18,00,000/-The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act.
4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The appeal was filed on 30.08.2022 against the assessment order dated 26.03.2022. Thus, there was a delay of 127 days in filing the appeal. The learned CIT(A) first proceeded to examine the issue of condonation of delay under section 249(3) of the Act. The assessee explained the delay in filing the appeal by stating, inter alia, that:
The assessee is not well educated and has studied only up to 10th standard and does not know how to operate a computer;
4
Mahesh Prakash Bende
The non-compliance during assessment proceedings was not intentional but due to lack of education and default of the accountant;
The assessee came to know about the tax demand at a later stage;
The business of the assessee had already been closed in the year 2015;
The earlier accountant and auditor were not traceable and time was required to engage a new person;
The delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and a sympathetic view was prayed for.
5. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and the statutory provisions of section 249, declined to condone the delay. The CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to establish “sufficient cause” for delay within the meaning of section 249(3) and the reasons furnished were not supported by any cogent and verifiable evidence. The CIT(A) also held that the ignorance of law and blaming the accountant cannot constitute sufficient cause. The CIT(A) concluded that the delay of 127 days was inordinate and attributable to negligence and lack of diligence on the part of the assessee. The CIT(A) further observed that the law of limitation has to be applied with full rigour and that the appellate authority has no power to extend limitation on equitable grounds. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) rejected the 5
Mahesh Prakash Bende application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal in limine, without adjudicating the issues on merits.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned
National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT(A) has erred in upholding the Assessment Proceedings initiated without a valid sanction since it was initiated by taking approval of Range 27(2) under section 151 as against valid approval of PCCIT/PCIT when the assessment is reopened beyond 4 years.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned
[WP No. 546/2022; order dated 15.02.2022].
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned
National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by appellant in limine on the ground of limitation - without condoning the delay in filing the appeal caused due to reasonable causes.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned
National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in completing the Assessment in gross violation of the principle of natural justice.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned
National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in adding the receipts of Rs.4,09,16,374/- to the total turnover as reported by the appellant in form 3CD without considering the fact that the turnover declared in the audit report includes the total receipts of Rs.4,09,16,374/- which resulted in Double addition of estimated profit of Rs. 38,23,291/- on the same receipts or Turnover.
6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.
6
Mahesh Prakash Bende
Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee reiterated the factual matrix of the case as emanating from the orders of the lower authorities. He further drew our attention to the reasons furnished for condonation of delay, as reproduced by the learned CIT(A) in para 3.1 at page 4 of the impugned order, and submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional. It was submitted that the assessee is not well educated and has studied only up to 10th standard and is not conversant with computer operations. The learned AR further submitted that the non-compliance during the assessment proceedings as well as the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to lack of proper guidance and default on the part of the accountant. It was further contended that the assessee came to know about the demand belatedly, by which time the business of the assessee had already been closed and the earlier accountant and auditor were not traceable. The learned AR submitted that considerable time was consumed in arranging for a new professional to pursue the matter and, therefore, the delay of 127 days had occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. It was thus contended that the assessee had demonstrated a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay and, in the interest of substantial justice, the same deserved to be condoned. The learned AR accordingly prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal in limine be set aside and the matter be restored for adjudication on merits.
7
Mahesh Prakash Bende
On the merits, it was contended that the turnover as reflected in the audit report in Form No. 3CD represents the correct turnover of the assessee, having been duly certified by the Chartered Accountant. The learned AR reiterated that the assessee could not comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, as the same were not retrieved due to discontinuance of business and non-access to the registered email address. It was thus submitted that the non-compliance was neither deliberate nor intentional, and a sympathetic view may be taken in the matter. The learned AR, pointed out the prayers made before the CIT(A) - (i) that for the purpose of determining the total income, the turnover be considered either as per the audit report in Form 3CD or as reflected in Form 26AS, without resulting in duplication; (ii) that the exempt allowances and deductions as reflected in the salary certificate in Form No. 16 be allowed while computing the income under the head “Salary”; (iii) that credit of tax deducted at source, as appearing in Form 26AS, be duly granted to the assessee.
On the basis of the above submissions, the learned AR prayed that the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted and appropriate relief be granted to the assessee.
9. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A),
8
Mahesh Prakash Bende particularly the findings recorded in para 6.11 and para 7 of the impugned order.
10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The limited issue arising for our consideration at this stage is whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine on account of delay in filing the appeal.
11. It is an admitted position that there was a delay of 127 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The reasons for such delay, as noted by the learned CIT(A) in para 3.1 of the impugned order and reiterated before us, indicate that the assessee is not well educated, was dependent upon his accountant, and was under a bona fide belief that the return of income had been filed since the audit report in Form 3CB-3CD had been filed. It is further stated that the business of the assessee had been discontinued and the notices issued by the Department were not retrieved due to non-access to the registered email address.
12. In our considered view, the expression “sufficient cause”
appearing in section 249(3) of the Act is required to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice. The reasons assigned by the assessee, though reflecting certain degree of negligence, cannot be said to be mala fide or deliberate so as to warrant outright rejection of the appeal without affording an opportunity of adjudication on merits.
9
Mahesh Prakash Bende
We find that the learned CIT(A) has adopted a hyper- technical approach in declining to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal in limine, thereby depriving the assessee of a statutory right of appeal. In the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the delay deserves to be condoned and the matter requires to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 14. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 15. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or on the legal grounds raised by the assessee, which shall remain open for adjudication before the learned CIT(A). The assessee is directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.03.2026. (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 20/03/2026
Dhananjay, Sr.PS
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst.