ANILKUMAR AGRAWAL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 25(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7016/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 February 2026AY 2013-14Bench: the Ld. Commissioner, the Assessee also filed online Appeal on e-file portal on dated 06.06.2016. As the Assessee has preferred the First1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed the first appeal within the limitation period in physical form and that the subsequent online filing was due to the introduction of the e-filing mechanism. It was also noted that the Commissioner did not provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order. The Commissioner disallowed the appeal stating a delay of 37 days in filing. However, the assessee contended that the appeal was filed physically within the limitation period and subsequently also filed online.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee was within the limitation period, and whether the Commissioner erred by not affording an opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH“A”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Bandi
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.02.2026Pronounced: 25.02.2026

O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 15.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-3, Kolkata[in short ‘Ld.

2.

In this case, the Assessee being aggrieved against the Assessment Order dated 18.03.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act, whereby three additions/disallowances have been made by the Assessing Officer, preferred First Appeal in physical form on dated 06.06.2016 which has been disallowed by the Ld. Commissioner by way of impugned order, mainly on the reason that there was a delay of 37 days in filing of such appeal on 06.06.2016. The Assessee drew our attention to the copy of Form No.35 which pertains to Appeal filed in physical form on dated 12.04.2016 and therefore has established that though the Assessee has duly filed the Appeal in physical form within the limitation period, however subsequently on this duration of online e-appeal mechanism for First Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, the Assessee also filed online Appeal on e-file portal on dated 06.06.2016. As the Assessee has preferred the First Appeal within the limitation period in physical form and as subsequently the mechanism for e-filing of Appeal was introduced thus the Assessee also filed online Appeal on e-filing portal of the Commissioner as well, and therefore there was no delay at all, but somehow the Ld. Commissioner held contrary.

3.

Further, it is also a fact that the Ld. Commissioner while considering and deciding the Appeal filed by the Assessee though online mechanism on dated 06.06.2016, has not issued any show

4.

Though the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee but not the factual aspect qua filing of Appeal in physical form on 12.04.2016, challenging the Assessment Order as also involved in this case and subsequently in order to follow the online mechanism guidelines for online mechanism also filed Appeal on e-filing portal on dated 06.06.2016. Therefore, it can easily be construed that there was no delay. Even, if there was a delay then also the delay cannot be attributed, as the Assessee has duly filed First Appeal on 12.04.2016 within the limitation period.

5.

Thus, in view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice to say by affording a reasonable opportunity being heard to the Assessee.

6.

The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued and file the relevant submissions/documents, without any default.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →