VISHAN SATRAMDAS LAKHANI,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT RANG 27, MUMBAI

PDF

ITA 7748/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 January 2026AY 2016-17Bench: the CIT(A). There was delay of 128 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The appellant had submitted that he did not receive any email or intimation for passing the assessment order. Only after receiving the notice u/s 271(1)(c) on 21.08.2023, the appellant could find the impugned assessment order and thereafter, he filed the appeal before the CIT(A) which was late by 95 days. The appellant had relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs.1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of 95 days, claiming they did not receive the assessment order or intimations. The AO had made additions under sections 68 and 69A after reopening the case under section 147. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to insufficient cause for the delay.

Held

The Tribunal held that the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not deliberate and that there was sufficient cause, considering the assessee did not receive communication from the AO. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mst. Katiji & Ors.

Key Issues

Whether the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and sufficient cause existed for condonation.

Sections Cited

147, 144, 144B, 68, 69A, 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
3,926 citing

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 13.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs.13,54,910/-. The case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. After hearing the assessee, order u/s 147 rws 144 rws 144B was passed on 29.03.2023 by making additions of Rs.84,89,600/- and Rs.14,25,000/- u/s 68 and 69A of the Act respectively. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). There was delay of 128 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The appellant had submitted that he did not receive any email or intimation for passing the assessment order. Only after receiving the notice u/s 271(1)(c) on 21.08.2023, the appellant could find the impugned assessment order and thereafter, he filed the appeal before the CIT(A) which was late by 95 days. The appellant had relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (SC) and other decisions and requested for condonation of delay. The reasons given by the assessee was not considered “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay of 95 days. Hence, the CIT(A) held the appeal as not maintainable and dismissed it.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the appellant submitted that the delay was very short of 95 days only and it occurred due to bona fide and reasonable cause beyond the 2016-17 Vishan Satramdas Lakhani control of the assessee. The CIT(A) should have considered the reasons given by the assessee sympathetically in the interest of justice and should have decided the appeal on merit. The assessment order was ex parte and the assessee did not receive any email or intimation regarding the assessment order. Only after receiving the show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, assessee found that the assessment order has already been passed and he filed the appeal which was delayed by 95 days. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) and Gupta Builders and Developers vs. ACIT in dated 03.09.2025 where the delay of 183 days was condoned by the ITAT. Hence, he requested to condone the delay.

On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT(A).

We have heard both parties and perused the materials on record. We have also carefully gone through the decision relied by the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that he did not receive the email and communication from the AO due to which an ex parte order was passed. After receiving the show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal which was delayed by 95 days. We are of the view that the delay was not deliberate and intentional.