JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11(2) & 11(1) and the delayed intimation of accumulation u/s. 11(2) & 11(1) by filing of belated Form 10 may be condoned and admitted and hence the addition of Rs.14,18,78,917/- may be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to above Form 10 filed along with the additional grounds of appeal, with application for condonation of delay

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11(2) & 11(1) and the delayed intimation of accumulation u/s. 11(2) & 11(1) by filing of belated Form 10 may be condoned and admitted and hence the addition of Rs.14,18,78,917/- may be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to above Form 10 filed along with the additional grounds of appeal, with application for condonation of delay

RASHI PERIPHERALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

144B on 21.03.2024. The deduction under section 80JJAA was allowed by assessing officer after full verification of facts. However, the assessment order dated 21.03.2024 was revised by Id. Pr. CIT-3 Mumbai by invoking his jurisdiction under section 263 in his order dated 26.03.2025. The Id. Pr. CIT before revising the assessment order recorded that there was delay

ANA CHARITABLE TRUST,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

condone the delay in filing of return and audit report.” 5. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on record. First, the observation of the Ld.Assessing Officer in the order under section 143(3) dated 20/09/2022 is reproduced as below: - “3. The school is running for standard I to X and the teachers are assigned the classes

ANAND GOVIND PARAB,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Anand Govind Parab Assessing Officer Assessment Unit Flat No. 12, C-11, 1St Floor, Income Tax Department Gayatri Cps Sector, Sanpada, Vs. Ito Ward 34(2)(2) G Block, Bkc Navi Mumbai-400 705 Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). Under the provision of section 249(2) of the Act, the assessee was required to file appeal before the ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the service 3 Anand Govind Parab vs. ITO of the notice of demand relating to assessment order but same was filed after delay

KAILASHIDEVI UMAKANT BHARADWAJ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O WARD 41(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condoning the delay in a similar factual matrix in the case of the assessee. 6. We find that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the document as sought by the AO and, therefore, the assessment was completed on the best judgment basis under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

144B of the act with a total addition of Rs.72,124,307/- related to purchase of immovable property amount to Rs.32,79,650/-, unexplained term deposit amount to Rs.26,56,000/- under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act, addition on account of salary Rs.6,32,472/-, addition on account of cash deposit under section 68 read with

KAVITA MILIND RANANAWARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

144B of the act with a total addition of Rs.72,124,307/- related to purchase of immovable property amount to Rs.32,79,650/-, unexplained term deposit amount to Rs.26,56,000/- under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act, addition on account of salary Rs.6,32,472/-, addition on account of cash deposit under section 68 read with

BHAVANA MANOJ SINGH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailbhavana Manoj Singh, Flat No. 404, Kamal Apartment, Lokhandwala Complex, Opp. Rna Market, Azad Nagar, ............... Appellant Mumbai-400053. Pan : Bchps6429M V/S Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400012. Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.Dr

delay without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits against the addition made vide order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 with section 144B of the Act. We find that before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made the following submission for seeking condonation

MAHESH PRAKASH BENDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

144B of the Act. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is an individual. As per information available with the Department under the Non-filer Monitoring System (NMS), the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. However, as per the information gathered from the system, the assessee had entered into financial transactions during

PRATIBHA VILAS PATIL,MUMBAI vs. NAFC, , DELHI

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act was framed on the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 26/03/2022, after making an addition of INR.1,37,76,640/- in the hands of the Appellant under Section 69 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal against the CIT(A) challenging the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act as well

SHEETAL NILESH SONAWANE,KALWA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

delay in fling the appeal My assessment order under section 147 w. r. s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act v/as completed on 03.03.2023. However, as per profile record my e-mail ID and mobile no. are not correct as well as latest. Further due to bad and medical health condition I could not receive

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KHADAMAT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

delay of 94 days in filing of CO, is condoned. 5. Coming to Cross Objection, the Assessee has raised additional grounds, such as order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is invalid and bad in the eyes of law. Further, the notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued by the invalid Authority and hence

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 4. Since in both the appeals the assessee has raised similar issues which arise out of the similar factual matrix, therefore, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience, and are being decided by way of this consolidated order

BIANCA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, failed to condone of delay

MANSUKHLAL MOHANLAL MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokars.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mansukhlal Mohanlal Ito Ward-41(2)(3), Mehta Huf Kautilya Bhavan, B-102, Krishakunj, S. N. Vs. Bandra Kurla Road, Mulund West, Complex, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 080 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaghm5909Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Kalpana Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

delay of 81 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3 & S.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 Mansukhlal Mohanlal Mehta HUF Facts of the Case 6. The assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B

RAJENDRA KAMALAKANT CHODANKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 6629/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL 1. In the above-mentioned case, the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC had passed an order on 26.08.2024. The statutory due date for filing this appeal before your Honour was 25.10.2024. However, the captioned appeal has been filed by the appellant on 18.12.2024 resulting in a delay of 54 days. 2. It is respectfully

CHIRAG CHANDRAKANT MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-27,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Chirag Chandrakant Mehta Vs Principal Commissioner Of C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Income Tax-27, Mumbai 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan: (Aabpm5091L) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

section 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16. 2 Chirag Chandrakant Mehta A.Y. 2015-16 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 399 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which an affidavit for condonation

KALPANA SANJAY SATPUTE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA 1104/Mum/2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekalpana Sanjay Satpute Vs Ito, Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai Flat No. B-202, Viceroy Park Chs, Plot No.03, Secor No.18, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400 705 Pan: Bghps5409P Appellant Respondent

section 144B of the Act, date of order 27/04/2023. 2. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order exparte dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine because of delay in filing the appeal for 271 days. The explanation furnished by the assesse for filing appeal