SRIKANTIA SOMASHEKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6532/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 December 2025AY 2007-08Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive notices due to an old, deactivated email ID. Considering this, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08 arose from an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with notices. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- as on-money on the sale of a property.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte when the assessee could not receive notices due to technical issues with their email?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘G’ BENCH: MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Shankar Balasubramanian
For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta,CIT DR
Hearing: 16.12.2025Pronounced: 22.12.2025

Srikantia Somashekar Individual ACIT - 26(3) Assistant 3rd Floor, Gita, Plot 92, Sion East, Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai-400022 Dy. Commissioner Circle 41(1)(1) MB Room No. 425, Bandra (E) PAN: AAQPS6845K Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Shankar Balasubramanian Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta,CIT DR Date of Hearing : 16.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025 O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M :

Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08 arises out of the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 31.07.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter “AO”] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 23.03.2015.

Srikantia Somashekar Individual :- 2 -:

2.

There is delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed affidavit stating the reason that all notices were issued to the old email ID corr_rad@vsnl.com with VSNL and the said email ID has been discontinued/deactivated by VSNL longtime back and therefore assessee has not received the order. The Ld. AR of the assessee prayed to condone the delay of 14 days in filling the appeal. We have considered, the submission of Ld. AR and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly we condone the delay

3.

The assessee has filed return of income showing total income of Rs. 87,20,550/-. The A.O has reopened the assessment on the basis of information that the assessee has received on-money of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- from Shri Maruti N. Navale on sale of the property at Geeta Building, Sion (East), Mumbai. The assessee before A.O has submitted that he has sold his property for consideration of Rs. 2,07,00,000/- to Shri Maruti N. Navale as per registration dated 28.03.2007, but denied to have received any on-money in cash. The assessee explained that receipt of Rs 1,55,00,000 received from Mr. Navale was for getting the Shop No 2, 3 and 4 vacated which was returned back on failure of negotiation. However, the A.O did not accept assessee’s explanation and made addition of on money of Rs. Srikantia Somashekar Individual :- 3 -:

1,55,00,000/-. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex-parte as assessee has not replied to the various notices issued.

4.

At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) has submitted that the assessee has not received any of the notices issued as notices were issued at email account which was not in operation.

The Ld.AR therefore prayed that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to substantiate his case, as huge addition has been made by the A.O.

5.

The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R) on the other hand relied on the orders of the lower authorities and requested that the appeal be dismissed.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The A.O had made addition of on money of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- in respect of sale of the property at Geeta Building, Sion (East), Mumbai. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte without any submission made by the assessee. The assessee has given reason for non compliance of notices issues by Ld. CIT(A).

Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that one more opportunity is to be provided to the assessee to substantiate its case before the Srikantia Somashekar Individual :- 4 -:

Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice. We, accordingly, restore the appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording proper opportunity to the assessee.

7.

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

Order pronounced on 22nd day of December, 2025 at Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →