VIMALA JAYANTILAL PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7063/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 February 2026AY 2023-247 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the death in the CA's family constituted a 'sufficient cause' for the delay. Therefore, it directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to an 8-day delay in filing, which the assessee attributed to the sudden death of their Chartered Accountant. The original assessment order by the AO included several additions, such as disallowances of depreciation and unexplained cash credits.

What were the issues?

Whether the death of the assessee's CA constitutes sufficient cause to condone an 8-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 32,Section 68,Section 69C,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 24.02.2026Pronounced: 27.02.2026

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), [in short, 'CIT(A)'], dated 02.09.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2023-24. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. That the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) erred in law and on facts in completing the assessment u/s 143(3) and in making various disallowances and additions, which are unjustified, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice. The appellant denie

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 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →