MR. RAKESH KUMAR PANCHAMLAL KESARWANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(3)(1), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH
MUMBAI
BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.5669/Mum/2025 & 5670/Mum/2025
(Assessment Year :2015-16)
Shri
Rakesh
Kumar
Panchamlal Kesarwani
Room
No.141,
Nr.
Patkar Compound
Gilberthill Road
Andheri West
Mumbai- 400 058
Vs. Assessment
Unit
Income Tax Department
Income
Tax
Officer,
Ward 24(3)(1)
Piramal Chamber
Mumbai
PAN/GIR No.ATYPK8695E
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)
Shri
Manoj
Kumar
Panchamlal Kesharwani
144,
Nr.
Pakar
Compound, Gillbert Hill
Road, Andheri West
Mumbai- 400 058
Vs. Assessment
Unit
Income Tax Department
Income
Tax
Officer,
Ward 24(2)(1)
Piramal Chamber
Mumbai
PAN/GIR No.ASWPK9091K
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Vijay H Shah, CA
Revenue by Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.
AR
Date of Hearing
24/11/2025
Date of Pronouncement
28/11/2025
ITA No.5669/Mum/2025 and others
Rakesh Kumar Panchamlal Kesarwani and Other
आदेश / O R D E R
PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):
These three appeals, being ITA Nos. 5669, 5670 and 5671/Mum/2025, have been preferred by the assessee against (i) the order dated 15 July 2025 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in relation to the quantum assessments, and (ii) the order dated 21 July
2025 imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act arising therefrom. One of the appeals also challenges the order dated 10 March 2025. Since the issues in all three appeals emanate from the same factual matrix and interconnected proceedings, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.
The case of the assessee is that both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed their respective orders ex parte, citing non-compliance of notices. The assessee has pleaded before us that he is an uneducated person who neither reads nor writes English and does not have access to or knowledge of e-mail or the income tax portal. It has been asserted that he was genuinely unaware of the issuance of notices, and therefore could not respond. The assessee emphasises that there was never any intention to disregard or avoid the proceedings, and there was no deliberate non-compliance of notices; the non-participation occurred solely because he was unaware of such notices.
ITA No.5669/Mum/2025 and others
Rakesh Kumar Panchamlal Kesarwani and Other
We have perused the impugned orders. It is evident that the Assessing Officer and subsequently the first appellate authority proceeded solely on the basis of non-appearance and absence of submissions. However, there is no evidence on record to establish that the assessee had actual knowledge of the notices issued electronically. In the factual circumstances where the assessee is uneducated and unable to understand or access digital communication, the failure to participate cannot be construed as contumacious conduct or culpable disregard of statutory obligations. When the explanation is examined against these realities, we find it difficult to hold that the assessee was afforded a fair and effective opportunity of hearing before the assessments were concluded.
In view of these facts, we hold that the assessee cannot be visited with an ex parte assessment order and consequential penalty merely because notices were issued through the income tax portal or by e-mail, when the assessee was demonstrably unaware of such issuance. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the quantum assessment orders passed under section 147 read with section 144 are set aside and the matters are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall issue fresh notices in a form and manner that the assessee reasonably understands, grant adequate opportunity of hearing, and thereafter reframe the assessments strictly in accordance with law.
ITA No.5669/Mum/2025 and others
Rakesh Kumar Panchamlal Kesarwani and Other
4
5. The penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is based on the very quantum additions that now stand remanded. Once the foundation for the penalty has been set aside, the superstructure of penalty cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is deleted. However, it is clarified that the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to initiate penalty afresh, if so warranted in law, depending upon the outcome of the fresh assessment.
In the result, the quantum appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the penalty appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced on 28th November, 2025. (RENU JAUHRI) (AMIT SHUKLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 28/11/2025
KARUNA, sr.ps
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
BY ORDER,
(Asstt.