Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was directed against an order of the CIT(A) which had partly allowed their appeal against an assessment order. The Revenue's appeal was delayed by 150 days. The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing substantial justice over technical considerations.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Assessment Order passed under Section 147 of the Act was bad in law. Consequently, all additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were valid and whether the additions made on merits were justified.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
order : 20.02.2026 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 15/04/2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 50, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2023, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2018-2019.
The appeal preferred by the Revenue is delayed by 150 days. In the application seeking condonation of delay Revenue has been explained that the delay in filing the appeal is purely inadvertent and occurred due to bonafide administrative reasons. The delay in filing appeal was not deliberate and for reasons beyond control. We have no reasons to doubt the aforesaid explanation offered by the Revenue. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. In the present the Appellant has provided sufficient explanation for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In our view, no benefit would have accrued to the Appellant by delaying filing of appeal. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Therefore, delay of 150 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal.
We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record.
It emerges that the assessment was framed on the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 by way of Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2023 passed under Section 147 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Assessee before the Learned CIT(A) was partly allowed by the Learned CIT(A), vide order, dated 15/04/2025. The Assessee had challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings as well as the addition made on merits in appeal before the Learned CIT(A). Vide order, dated 15/04/2025, the Learned CIT(A) rejected the challenge to validity of reassessment proceedings and granted partial relief to the Assessee. Being aggrieved, Assessee preferred appeal in for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 before this 2 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Tribunal challenging the above order passed by the Learned CIT(A) vide Common Order dated 28/11/2025, Tribunal concluded that the Assessment Order passed under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act was bad in law and thus allowed Assessee’s challenge to the validity of the reassessment proceedings.
The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) to the extent the Learned CIT(A) had granted relief to the Assessee on merits. Since, the Tribunal has already held the Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2023, passed under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 to be bad in law, the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer stands deleted. Therefore, the present appeal preferred by the Revenue challenging the relief granted by the Learned CIT(A) on merits has been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed.
In terms of above, the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 20.02.2026.