JAIDEV VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 13(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6626/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. Recognizing the lack of effective representation at the first appellate stage and the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, despite the assessee having reasonable cause for not furnishing required details. The CIT(A) had upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer related to the purchase of immovable property, considering it as escapement of assessment based on stamp duty valuation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering reasonable cause, and whether the case should be remitted back for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250(4),Section 251(1)(a),Section 53A,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 43CA,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 09.02.2026Pronounced: 11.02.2026

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073548806(1), dated 21/02/2025, passed against the assessment order by National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 31.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2 Jaidev Vinod Kumar Gupta AY 2017-18

2.

Grounds taken by assessee are reproduced as under: Ground 1 Order of CIT (A) – not decided on merits, despite so claimed a) On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) failed to realise that deciding the appeal o

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 →