MAHESH NARSING CHOUDHARY,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4769/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 October 2025AY 2019-2020Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of missed notices and the Revenue's argument of sufficient opportunity. It decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal made no findings on the merits of the case, treating one ground related to natural justice as allowed for statistical purposes due to the remand.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment order for AY 2019-20, passed under Sections 147/144B, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The core dispute involved the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 148, alleged violations of natural justice, and an addition of Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 69A/115BBE as unexplained cash credit. The assessee contended that notices for hearing before the CIT(A) were missed, leading to a lack of proper representation.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 including natural justice compliance, and the justification of an addition of Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 69A/115BBE for unexplained cash credit, particularly concerning the opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 148A(d),Section 151,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

order : 29.10.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

1. 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 04/06/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 16/01/2024, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2019-2020.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “I. VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT GROUND NO 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer in Assessment Year 2019-2020 reopening the assessment for the captioned assessment year which is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, void ab-initio and violating the principle of natural justice. 1.1 The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment for the captioned assessment year without complying with the provisions of Section 147 to 151 of the Act. 1.2 The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice under section 148 without complying the provisions of section 148A vis a vis order required under section 148A(d) and without affording sufficient opportunity to the Appellant of appreciating the issues and representing his case. 1.3 The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer erred in completing the assessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act without affording the Appellant, sufficient opportunity of being heard. The Assessment proceedings are vitiated as there is gross violation of principles of natural justice and the due process of law has not been followed. 1.4 The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer has simply relied upon the alleged Report of the Investigation Wing of the Department for invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer has not applied his independent mind to the facts available on record nor has reached any independent reasonable belief as to escapement of income. 1.5 The appellant contends that notice dated: 31.03.2023 issued by learned Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai (JAO) is wholly without jurisdiction as the same can only be issued by National Faceless Assessment Unit (FAO) 1.6 The appellant contends that the in view of the above, the reopening of the assessment is invalid and bad in law and hence the assessment is null and void and be set aside or struck down. ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT AT RS. 10,00,000/- 2.1. GROUND NO 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-made by the learned Assessing Officer under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act alleging the same as fictious loan received by the Appellant from one ARC Group. 2.1. The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as alleged Unexplained Money under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

2 Assessment Year 2019-2020 2.2. The appellant contends that the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000 being Unsecured Loan was duly disclosed in the Return of Income and also during the Assessment Proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of Act. Thus, addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained cash credit is unwarranted and unjustified. 2.3. The appellant contends that the Assessment has been completed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Assessing Officer has simply relied upon alleged Report of the Investigation Wing of the Department without affording sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to verify and rebut the same. 2.4. The appellant contends that the it is submitted that there was no proper response furnished by the consultant of the Appellant dealing with the above matter. This has led to unwarranted adverse assessment. 2.5. The Appellant thus contends that the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 on assessment may kindly be deleted as the same is unjustified and unwarranted.

3.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that notice for hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A) sent on the email address were missed by the Assessee and therefore, proper representation could not be made before the Ld. CIT(A). In addition the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee made brief factual and legal submissions on merits.

4.

In response, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the Assessee to make representation before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Assessee failed to avail the benefit of the same. It was further submitted that the submissions advanced on merits were being on behalf of the Assessee for the first time before this Tribunal as the same were neither raised nor considered of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer.

5.

We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record. We find that last 4 notice of hearing were issued by the Ld. CIT(A) over a period of three months. It was submitted that the Assessee could not make proper representation before the Ld. CIT(A) 3 Assessment Year 2019-2020 since the aforesaid notice received over email were inadvertently missed by the Assessee. At the same time, we find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue that the factual/legal submissions on merits made by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee were effectively being made for the first time before this Tribunal since no effective representation was made before the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A). Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned Order, dated 04/06/2025, passed by the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Since we have restored the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee would be at liberty to place relevant facts along with supporting documents before the CIT(A). The Assessee would also have liberty to raise all rights and contentions before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) would be admit/adjudicate the same as per law. It is clarified that we have not returned any findings of merits. In terms of the aforesaid Ground No. 2.3 raised by the Assessee it treated as allowed for statistical purposes while all the other grounds are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that we have set aside the impugned order and restored the issues back to the file of the Learned CIT(A).

6.

In result the appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →