IMTIYAZ AHMAD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7683/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 February 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 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 noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case for condonation of delay before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to provide a fresh opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) challenging an order of the AO. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 1577 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of this delay without adjudicating on the merits of the case. The assessee argued that there was a reasonable cause for the delay and submitted documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits, and if not, whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to explain the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B),Section 250,Section 56(2)(x),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Shadab
For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (SR. DR.)
Hearing: 11.02.2026Pronounced: 18.02.2026

ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 17.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19. The following grounds are reproduced below: “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, that the Id. CIT(A) has seriously erred in Law and on the Facts and it in the circumstances of the case in 2. Imtiyaz Ahmand Khan confirming Id. AO's Order U/s 143(3) rws 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 making Alleged Addition of Rs. 30,74,495/- as under:

The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the Appeal without adjudicating on the Facts of the case and merely relying on the appeal filed belatedly with a delay of 1577 days, whereas, the Appellant provided cogent and bonafide arguments corroborated with documentary evidences for the said delay in filing appeal with ld. CIT(A). The said Alleged difference being fully explainable thereby the said Order U/s 143(3) rws 143(3A) & 143(3B) may be DELETED, ON MERITS.

2. The case of the assessee is meritorious one as at the time of the Appeal Proceedings with Id. CIT(A) all submissions with documentary evidences were submitted, however the Id. CIT(A) dismissed the case without adjudicating on the merits of the case and solely relying on basis of delay in filing appeal is against the principles of natural justice.

3. The Appellant further submits that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in levying interest u/s "234A, 234B, 234C, 234D" and other Applicable Provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961. Consequential relief be Directed to be given to re-computed the said Interests, if any and/or Delete the Interest as per the outcome of this Appeal 4. Your Appellant craves leave, to add to, vary, amend, modify or alter, the aforesaid grounds and/or adduce further evidence, before or at the time of hearing.”

3 Imtiyaz Ahmand Khan

2.

At the outset we noticed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the application for seeking condonation of delay. In this regard we noticed that the assessee had filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) which was belated by 1577 days and thus requested for the condonation of the same.

3.

Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the application filed by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay by holding that the assessee could not furnish the documentary evidences to explain the delay in filing appeal and also could not establish the reasonable cause in filing the appeal.

4.

Whereas on the contrary ld. AR submitted that the assessee had furnished all the required documents and is still ready and willing to furnish all the required documents, which are in his power and possession to establish that there was reasonable and sufficient cause because of which the assessee could not file within time before ld. CIT(A).

5.

Be that as it may without going into the merits of the issues raised in the present appeal, we are of the view, that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to establish his case for seeking condonation of delay before Ld. CIT(A), in an effective manner. Thus, in view of the same, we restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A), with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case for seeking 4 Imtiyaz Ahmand Khan condonation of delay and assessee is also at liberty to furnish documentary evidences if any to justify sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) subject to the cost of Rs. 2000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee in PM’s Relief Fund and the receipt of the same be filed before ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

6.

Needless to mention that the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

7.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →