What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the application for condonation. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay in filing. The assessee had jointly owned a property acquired based on an allotment letter and an agreement for sale.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for delay without considering the condonation application. The primary issue is the procedural correctness of the CIT(A)'s order.

Karan Naraindas Sukhani vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU, (AM)

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Otwani

For Respondent: Shri. Santosh Mankoskar

Hearing: 21/06/2016Pronounced: 30/06/2016

O R D E R

PER G.S.PANNU, AM

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order dt. 22/10/2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) -26, Mumbai for the assessment year 2009-10, therein declining to condone the delay involved in filing of the appeal and thus dismissing the same as being not maintainable on the said count.

The assessee challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A), had raised the following grounds of appeal :-

2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 “Being aggrieved by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 26, this appeal petition is being submitted on the following grounds which is prayed may be considered without prejudice to one another.

1) The CIT(A)-26 erred in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing appeal.

2) The CIT(A)- VI erred in not considering the application for condonation of delay in principal.

3) The CIT(A)- VI erred in not taking note of finding of Assessing Officer pointed out by A.R during the Appellate proceedings on Page no. 3 relevant to condonation of delay in filing Appeal.

4) The appeal is in time and order.

5) The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds on or before the final date of hearing.

PRAYER The Appellant therefore prays that the order of CIT(A) dismissing the Appeal filed on account of delay may be cancelled and CIT(A) may be asked to re-hear Appeal condoning the delay or any other relief may be granted as may be deemed fit and just, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. "

2.1 The assessee filed his 'Return of Income' on 30/06/2009, declaring income of Rs.1,66,510/-, which was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. The 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 assessee along with his mother Mrs. Sumita N. Sukhani, both having equal ½ share each, jointly owned a property marked as Flat No. 601, 6th Floor, Birchwood, Raheja Willows, Akurli Road, Kandivali (E), Mumbai- 400101, (hereinafter referred to as 'Flat') which was acquired by them on the basis of an allotment letter dated: 26/01/2005 of M/s K. Raheja Universal Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'developer'), wherein the complete details as regards the flat, terms and conditions regulating the payments to be made, list of amenities, as well as the obligations of the buyers and the developer stood mentioned. Thereafter an 'Agreement for Sale' was executed between the 'buyers' and the 'developer' as on 27/03/2007, for a consideration of Rs. 36,49,650/-, which was registered with the

KARAN NARAINDAS SUKHANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(3)(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments