SALEEM MOHD YUSUF HOLDEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(3)(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of natural justice, despite the assessee's non-compliance. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication with a direction to the assessee to provide documentary evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file requisite documents during assessment proceedings, leading to a best judgment assessment. The appeal was filed with a significant delay, attributed to change of Chartered Accountant and other unavoidable circumstances.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessment should be re-adjudicated based on fresh evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-42 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-42/IT-310/14-15 dated 25/04/2016 qua confirmation of certain additions. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer-24(3)(3), Mumbai [AO] on 12/03/2014 on Saleem Mohd. Yusuf Holdekar Assessment Year-2011-12 best judgment basis u/s 144 of the Income Tax,1961 since the assessee failed to file the requisite documents during assessment proceedings. The assessee has been assessed at Rs.89.62 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.14.72 Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 13/09/2011. 2.1 The registry has noted that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 784 days. The Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri G.P.Mehta has pleaded for condonation of the same on the strength of assessee’s condonation petition dated 01/08/2016 as supported by affidavit dated 16/08/2016. The delay has been attributed to unavoidable circumstances including change of Chartered Accountant. The same has been vehemently opposed by Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav by pleading that each days delay was required to be explained and there was no sufficient cause demonstrated by the assessee in the condonation petition. 2.2 After hearing rival contentions, we find that the assessee has remained non-compliant during assessment proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings. Even the explanation for condonation of delay is not plausible. However, keeping in view the fact that the assessee is an individual and suffered high pitched assessment and keeping in view the principle of natural justice, we condone the same and proceed to dispose- off the appeal on merits.
As evident from the quantum assessment order, the failure on the part of assessee to submit requisite details has resulted into rejection of books Saleem Mohd. Yusuf Holdekar Assessment Year-2011-12 of accounts and the income of the assessee has been estimated on best judgment basis @ 6% of total sales of Rs.14.69 Crores. The same has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee remained non-compliant even before Ld. first appellate authority.
Keeping in view the overall factual matrix, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the claim forthwith with documentary evidences failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to complete the assessment on the basis of material available on record.
Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th July, 2018 Sd/- Sd/- (C.N.Prasad) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 12.07.2018 Sr.PS:-Thirumalesh Saleem Mohd. Yusuf Holdekar Assessment Year-2011-12 आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु�त/ CIT– concerned 5. �वभागीय��त�न�ध मुंबई , आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण , / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड�फाईल / Guard File
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026