HEMANT MADHUSUDAN SHETH,MUMBAI V. ACIT, CC-2(1), MUMBAI

MA 278/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Hemant Madhusudan Sheth, who filed miscellaneous applications for the recall of an ex-parte order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning several assessment years. The original assessments were reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to significant additions to the assessee's declared income. The Tribunal had earlier dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay in filing, which was not condoned despite multiple opportunities given to explain the delay. The Tribunal's decision to recall the order was based on the need to provide the assessee another opportunity to present his case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826257 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM MA Nos.275, 276, 277, 278 & 279/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos.4686, 4688, 4689, 4732 & 4687/Mum/2024) (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2011-12 & 2009-10) Mr. Hemant Madhusudan Sheth, 115/117 Dr. Atma ram Merchant Road, 3rd Floor Kabutar Khana, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai – 400 002 Vs. CIT(A), Central Circle 2(1), ACIT CC-2(1), 8th Floor Pratiksha Bhawan, Old CGO Annexe, Maharshee Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No.ANOPS8607E (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Gaurav Bansal, AR Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 12.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by the assessee/applicant for recall of the ex-parte order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.4686, 4688, 4689, 4732 & 4687/Mum/2024, dated 28.04.2025. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking MA No.275/M/2025 as the lead case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee/applicant is an individual and had filed his return of income dated 31.03.2013, declaring total income at Rs.2,04,470/-. The assessee’s case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), vide notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2019. The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO” for short) Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA Nos.275, 276, 277, 278 & 279/Mum/2025 Mr. Hemant Madhusudan Sheth passed the assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 05.11.2019 being the best judgment assessment, determining total income at Rs.7,32,03,585/- after making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. 3. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order, who vide order dated 09.02.2024, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, thereby upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim by sufficient documentary evidences. 4. The assessee/applicant was in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)” for short) and the Tribunal vide order dated 28.04.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee was beyond the period of limitation and inspite of several opportunities given by the Tribunal the assessee had failed to explain that there was “sufficient cause” as per section 253(5) of the Act for the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal on this ground dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee/applicant has filed this miscellaneous application for recalling its order dated 28.04.2025 passed in ITA Nos.4686 to 4689 & 4732/Mum/2024. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee/applicant has been non-complainant during the assessment proceedings and the Ld. AO had passed an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and even before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is said to have not filed the documentary evidences to Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA Nos.275, 276, 277, 278 & 279/Mum/2025 Mr. Hemant Madhusudan Sheth substantiate his claim. Before the Tribunal, there was a delay of 105 days and a direction by the Bench dated 10.12.2024 was passed where the assessee was to file a delay condonation application along with the affidavit. Inspite of several opportunities, the assessee was non-complainant and hence the assessee’s appeal was dismissed in-limine without condoning the delay. Though the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR” for short) contends that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and thereafter an adjournment application was also filed, the same was not found in the records of the appeal set nor was the assessee present during the hearing. It also emanates from the order sheet that the assessee was directed to file the condonation application on several occasions but has not complied with the same. 6. The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR” for short) controverted the assessee’s contention that there was mistake apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal. Further, the Ld. DR stated that as there have been several opportunities granted to the assessee which were not availed by the assessee, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal. Upon perusal of the same, we deem it fit to extend the assessee with one more opportunity to present his case before the Tribunal by filing fresh application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit duly explaining the reason for the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation, by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the Tribunal without any undue delay. We hereby recall the order of the Tribunal dated 28.04.2025. Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA Nos.275, 276, 277, 278 & 279/Mum/2025 Mr. Hemant Madhusudan Sheth 7. In the result, the miscellaneous application No.275/M/2025 filed by the assessee/applicant is allowed on the above terms. 8. The finding given in this miscellaneous application i.e. MA No.275/M/2025 will apply mutatis mutandis to MA Nos.276, 277, 278 & 279/M/2025 as well. Accordingly, all the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee/applicant are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 08.01.2026 Kishore, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "