AMARCHAND LAKHMICHAND NARANG,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8977/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Amarchand Lakhmichand Narang, the appellant, contesting an ex-parte order from the CIT(A)-7, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The primary issue was the delay in filing the first appeal, which was attributed to the negligence of the assessee's initial consultant. After changing consultants, the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 92 days, which was not intentional. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's request to pursue the case on its merits rather than procedural technicalities, leading to the decision to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a substantive review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835886 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: RUTUJA PAWAR; SALONI SANKHE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 8977/MUM/2025 (AY: 2016-17) (Physical hearing) Amarchand Lakhmichand Narang 401, 4th Floor, Narang Manor, Plot No. 96-B, 15th Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. [PAN : AAAPN4853C] Vs ITO, Ward – 12(1)(2), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Ms. Rutuja Pawar & Ms. Saloni Sankhe Advocates Revenue by Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR Date of Institution 23.12.2025 Date of hearing 12.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 12.02.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the ex-parte order of ld. CIT(A)-7, Delhi dated 14.11.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. Ms Saloni Sankhe learned Advocate/ Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there was little delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A). The Assessing Officer (AO) passed assessment order on 26.12.2018. First appeal before ld CIT(A) was filed only on 26.04.2029, thus, in filing such appeal there was delay of 92 days. The delay in filing such appeal was not intentional. The consultant of assessee neither filed nor advised to file further appeal in time and when asked him to take further necessary legal step, he refused to take further Printed from counselvise.com ITA 8977/Mum/2025 (AY 2016-17) Amarchand Lakhmichand Narang 2 step to file appeal. The assessee engaged other consultant and file appeal before ld CIT(A). There was reasonable cause to condone such delay. The assessee is interested to persue his case on merit. The appeal of assessee was dismissed in limine, without considering the merits of the case. The assessee seeks one more opportunity to contest the case before ld. CIT(A). The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed in one more opportunity to contest the case before ld. CIT(A) with the liberty to file written submission along with corroborative / supporting evidence. She undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance before lower authorities. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue not seriously opposed the plea of ld. AR of the assessee. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the lower authorities carefully. We find that ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by not condoning the delay in filing first appeal. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee vehemently urged that the assessee is really interested to pursue his case on merit. Considering the circumstances explained by ld AR of the assessee, which we have noted above, we find that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, rather the assessee is interested to pursue his case on merit, hence delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A) is condoned. Further we find that the ld CIT(A) has not discussed the merits of various grounds of appeal, therefore, keeping in view the principle of natural Printed from counselvise.com ITA 8977/Mum/2025 (AY 2016-17) Amarchand Lakhmichand Narang 3 justice, the matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide all the issues on merit. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the details and submissions to substantiate his grounds of appeal. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 12/02/2026 at the time of hearing in the open court. Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 12/02/2026 Biswajit,Sr PS Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "