RAMKUMAR VENUGOPAL INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7047/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 January 2026AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal after hearing both parties and perusing the affidavit. The Ld.AR submitted that due to the death of a Director, the matter could not be represented before the Ld.CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessment for AY 2009-10 was completed on 20-12-2016, where an amount of Rs. 66,43,847 was brought to tax due to bogus losses claimed by the assessee. The assessee's appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-prosecution. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 60 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and whether the matter should be set aside to the Ld.CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication due to non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 28-06-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal as pointed out by the Registry. After hearing both the parties and perusing the affidavit placed on record, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal and hence, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dt. 20-12-2016, wherein the AO has brought to tax a sum of Rs. 66,43,847/- on account of bogus losses claimed by the assessee on account of client code modification. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution.

4.

During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that due to death of the Director of the assessee-company, the matter could not be represented before the Ld.CIT(A) and it was submitted that the assessee be allowed one more opportunity to file the necessary submissions and the matter may accordingly be set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

The Ld. DR has been heard who has not raised any specific objection where the matter is set-aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

6.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record and the limited prayer so made by the Ld.AR on behalf of the assessee, the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →