GAUTAM GAJABHAI KANJIA,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(1)(6), MUMBAI

ITA 8606/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Gautam Gajabhai Kanjia, a small trader selling sarees, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2019-20. The appeal was initially delayed by 343 days, attributed to the assessee's reliance on an accountant who failed to adequately respond to the Assessing Officer's queries and manage the appeal process. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay, citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v/s MST Katiji. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been represented adequately at earlier stages and thus decided to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present his case and documents afresh.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840192 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v/s MST Katiji and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRIT SANGHVI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Period of limitation; Permanent establishment; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 148; 44AD

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8606/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Gautam Gajabhai Kanjia Room No.A 29, Basir Sheth Chawl, Vasu Matka Cross Lane, Gopaldevi Chowk, Bhavani Shankar Road, Mumbai - 400028 PAN: ASLPK6534E ............... Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(1)(6) Room No. 108, 1st Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kirit Sanghvi, CA Shri Pramod S. Patankar, CA Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 25/02/2026 Date of Order - 27/02/2026 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 14/10/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2019-20. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8606/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) 2 2. The present appeal is delayed by 343 days. Alongwith the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the assessee, submitting as follows: - “1. That I am a small trader selling sarees on footpath and roadside markets and do not have any permanent place of business. 2. That I had entrusted my income-tax matters to an accountant, during assessment proceedings, who assured me that the matter would be properly handled. I was not informed that no effective reply was filed before the Assessing Officer except return of income and computation. 3. That after receipt of assessment order, l engaged another tax consultant through reference for filing appeal before learned CIT(A). I was under a bona fide belief that my appeal was being properly followed up and attended. 4. That 1 am not conversant with income-tax appellate procedures and was not aware of the necessity of regular appearance and follow-up before appellate authorities. 5. That I came to know that the appeal was not attended only after receiving SMS and penalty-related communication, whereafter I immediately contacted another consultant and took steps to file appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. 6. That the delay in filing the present appeal has occurred due to bona fide reliance on earlier consultants and their failure to properly handle the matter, and not due to any intentional or deliberate negligence on my part. 7. That I have a good case on merits and I shall suffer irreparable loss if the delay is not condoned.” 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v/s MST Katiji and others, reported in 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well established that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee did not Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8606/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) 3 stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal. In view of the above and having perused the application and affidavit filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to decide the same. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The leaned CIT(A) faceless erred on facts and in law in disregarding the fact that the appellant had opted for s.44AD of the Act, which was responsible for generation of cash. 2. The learned CIT(A) faceless erred on facts and in law that s.148 was not applicable to the facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) faceless erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that in case of cash deposits into Bank the fact that the appellant had adopted computation of income and tax u/s 44AD of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in applying s.69A of the Act. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in invoking s. 115BBE of the Act.” 5. It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. We further find that even during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the documents as sought by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) and therefore the assessment was completed on the best judgment basis under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act on the basis of the material available on record. As per the assessee, he is a small trader selling sarees on footpaths and roadside markets and does not have any permanent Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8606/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) 4 place of business. As per the assessee, the tax consultants/accountant he engaged during the assessment proceedings before the AO and appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) did not represent his case except for filing the return of income and computation in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. During the hearing before us, the learned AR placed on record certain documents to justify the source and nature of the cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account. However, it is evident from the record that none of these details was submitted before the lower authorities and thus, could not be examined. 6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances as noted above, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent his case on merits and produce all the documents in support of his claim. Since in the present case, the assessee neither appeared before the AO nor before the learned CIT(A), we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication on merits after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish all the details as may be sought by the AO for complete adjudication. As the matter is being restored to the jurisdictional AO for adjudication on merits, the other grievance raised by the assessee in the present appeal does not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8606/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) 5 7. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/02/2026 Sd/- VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 27/02/2026 Prabhat 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 "