JAGRAM TEGIRAM YADAV,MUMBAI vs. WARD 41.1.2, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7149/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 January 2026AY 2019-20206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 162 days in filing the appeal, citing a liberal approach to condonation of delay in the interest of justice, and distinguishing the present case from the revenue's cited precedent due to the shorter delay. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not represented before the CIT(A) and notices remained un-responded, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution. However, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide the appeal on merits even in cases of non-prosecution, as powers of CIT(A) are co-terminus with the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to represent its case fairly. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and compliant in future proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide the matter as per law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jagram Tegiram Yadav, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.03.2025, for Assessment Year 2019-20. This order arose from a reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, dated 29.02.2024. The reassessment order included an addition of Rs. 35,68,440/- on account of bogus purchases. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance and non-prosecution. The present appeal before the ITAT was filed after a delay of 162 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings are invalid because the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by a faceless officer, and whether the CIT(A) erred in not following the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (Assessee's contention: Yes, the reassessment is invalid. Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 35,68,440/- on account of purchase of goods from M/s KMP and Sons Trading Pvt. Ltd. under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be deleted (Assessee's contention: Yes, the addition should be deleted as supporting documents were provided. Revenue's contention: The addition is justified as the assessee failed to submit details like driver's name, transportation payment, and delivery challan before the AO and CIT(A).) 3. Whether the addition made is against the principle of natural justice and not as per judicial pronouncements (Assessee's contention: Yes. Revenue's contention: Not recorded.)

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69C,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 251,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Bhayani & Shri Nirav
For Respondent: Shri Nagnath Bhimrao Pasale
Hearing: 08.01.2026Pronounced: 12.01.2026

O R D E R

Per Arun Khodpia, AM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short “ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.03.2025 for the AY 2019-20, arises from the assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Jagram Tegiram Yadav Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.02.2024 by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not treating the reassessment process as invalid as the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 31/03/2023 had been issued by the Jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) and not by faceless officer (NFAC) and also erred in not following the applicable Jurisdiction decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (Bombay HC)- Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023 dated 03/05/2024

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting the addition made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') of Rs. 35,68,440/- on account of purchase of goods from M/s KMP and Sons Trading Pvt. Ltd.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting the addition made in spite of the fact that the supporting documents such as reply letter, ledger confirmation, bank statement of payment made, Balance sheet, P&L account, audit report and ITR filed of the seller has been provided.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting the addition being against the principle of natural justice and order not as per judicial pronouncements.”

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the subjected assessment is completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 29.09.2024, by making an addition of Rs. 35,68,440/- on account of bogus purchase.

3.

Being aggrieved with such addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), however the assessee remained totally non-complaint before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the appeal of assessee is dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of non-compliance / non-prosecution.

4.

Before us the appeal of assessee found to be delayed for a period of 162 days, in explanation to such delay the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that, the assessee was dependent on his earlier Counsel, who had not attended the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and even had not informed the assessee about the passing of the impugned order. The ld. AR placed his reliance on the certain decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble Bombay High Court with a plea that in the interest of justice, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity and the condonation may not be refused only for the fault and sheer mistake or oversight on the part of his legal or tax advisor.

5.

Per contra, ld. Sr. DR objected to the request of condonation, he placed his reliance on a recent decision of ITAT, Mumbai SMC Bench in the case of Attivo Protezione Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in dated 31.10.2025, wherein a delay of 1370 days on account of wrong advice of Tax Consultant was denied treating the same as no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In rebuttal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the delay in present case is 162 days as against the delay of 1370 days in the case referred to by ld. Sr. DR, both these cases are un-comparable and therefore does not support the contentions of revenue in present case.

6. After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances following the principle of natural justice and the guiding principles by the Hon’ble Apex 3 Jagram Tegiram Yadav Court to deal with the matter of condonation of delay with a justice oriented and liberal approach, we deem it fit to allow the delay in filing of appeal in present matter for 165 days and accordingly the condonation of delay is granted.

6.

Coming to the merit of issue of the present matter wherein the addition was made on account of bogus purchases. It was the submission by Ld. AR that all the purchases are genuine for which necessary evidence were also produced before the Authorities below, therefore the entire addition is liable to be deleted.

7.

Per contra, ld. Sr. DR representing the revenue submitted that the assessee was unable to submit details like name of driver, transportation payment, delivery challan, etc. before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A), therefore the addition was justified and deserves to be upheld.

8.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly in present case, the assessee was not represented before the ld. CIT(A). All the notices issued under section 250 were remained un-responded, therefore the appeal of assessee was dismissed in limine on account of non-prosecution, whereas it was obligatory on the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits also, after considering the facts and material available on record, we take support from the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case Jagram Tegiram Yadav of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)- [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed as under:

"8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Sec. 250 of the Act. Further, Sec. 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Sec. 251(1)(a) and (h) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-s. (2) of s. 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under s. 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact w.e.f. 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore it to the AO for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the AO i.e. he can do all that A.O could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the AO to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non- prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.”

9.

In view of the facts and circumstances of instant case, following the decision of Hon’ble High Court referred to, we find it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A), with one more opportunity to the assessee so as to represent its case in a fair and justified manner.

Jagram Tegiram Yadav 10. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set-aside delay proceedings. The assessee also needs to be vigilant and complaint enough to respond to the notices issued under section 250 of the Act, failing which the ld. Appellate Authority would be at liberty to decide the matter in accordance with the mandate of law.

11.

In result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12-01-2026.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →