SMITA SURESH JANWALKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 368/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 March 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be unintentional. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, violating principles of natural justice and the mandate of section 250(6). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 196 days due to the appellant's lack of technological proficiency and residing in her native place. The assessee's original assessment was reopened under section 147, and an addition was made under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without a proper hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing an effective opportunity for hearing and complying with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 56(2)(x),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri Nikunj Parekh, CA
For Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (SR DR)
Hearing: 26.02.2026Pronounced: 04.03.2026

PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 06.05.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. On facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 ex-parte, without adjudicating the appeal on merits, which is contrary to law and liable to be set aside.

2.

The learned CIT(A) failed to comply with the mandat

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 →