JAIKISHIN OMPRAKASH PAHUJA,GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN, MUMBAI

ITA 8893/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 March 2026AY 2016-1712 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the delay of 492 days was substantial, the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the issues on merits. The Tribunal noted the assessee's explanation that the delay was primarily due to the authorized representative's lapse in filing the appeal within the prescribed time due to unfamiliarity with the electronic filing procedure, and not due to any deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal considered the peculiar facts of the case, including that the appeal was dismissed without an examination of the merits of the additions made under section 69. Applying a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, and citing the principle of liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details. The issues of additions under section 69 were not decided on merits by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jaikishin Omprakash Pahuja, an individual, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 22.10.2025. This order arose from the assessment order passed by the AO under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 19.02.2024, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information from the Insight-RMS system indicating high-value transactions by the assessee, including purchase of immovable property (Rs. 58,42,000), purchase of equity shares (Rs. 11,04,732), and sale of equity shares (Rs. 26,83,235). The assessee failed to respond to statutory notices during assessment proceedings. The AO made additions of Rs. 69,46,732 under section 69 for unexplained investments in property and shares, taxing it under section 115BBE. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 492 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay, without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the grounds of limitation, without adjudicating the issues on merits, when the delay was attributed to the authorized representative's unfamiliarity with e-filing procedures and departmental communications being missed. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay of 492 days occurred due to departmental communications being received in the junk folder of the registered email and a lack of knowledge regarding the electronic filing procedure for appeals. An affidavit from the authorized representative was submitted explaining the circumstances. The assessee contended that the delay was not deliberate and that the matter should be adjudicated on merits. The assessee also raised grounds regarding the AO's reopening of assessment under section 148A, alleging it was based on presumption, system-flagged information, and without independent inquiry. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the learned DR, did not raise any serious objection to the assessee's prayer for restoration of the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI MAKARAND V MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah
For Respondent: Shri Aniket Tiwari, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.03.2026Pronounced: 05.03.2026

PER MAKARAND V MAHADEOKAR, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order

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”] dated 22.10.2025, arising from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 19.02.2024 for Assessment Year 2016-17. Jaikishin Omprakas

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →