VIJAY RAMCHAND PANVELKAR,AMBERNATH vs. DY. CIT - 1, KALYAN, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1020/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 October 2025AY 2018-201910 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 137 days in filing the appeal, citing the landmark decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others, stating that refusing condonation could result in a meritorious matter being thrown out and that the delay was not intentional but due to bonafide mistakes and miscommunication, despite some lack of seriousness. The Tribunal noted that the appellate order was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance and that none of the grounds of appeal were adjudicated. Considering the principles of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to advance arguments and submissions before the AO and to file any additional evidence. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee for casualness and indifference towards statutory duties, payable to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The decision to restore the matter was not to be construed as having any reflection on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the AO. The issues regarding additions under Section 68, Section 37(1), and interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar, engaged in real estate, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19. The original assessment order was passed under Section 143(3)/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1. The assessee's return declared an income of Rs. 2,22,35,320/-, but the assessment resulted in additions, leading to a total income of Rs. 4,79,49,572/-. The assessee failed to provide details during assessment and did not respond to notices from the CIT(A), leading to the appellate order being passed ex-parte. The appeal before the ITAT was delayed by 137 days. The assessee cited reasons for the delay including miscommunication, change of CA, and personal health issues (angioplasty). The Revenue objected to the condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 137 days in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's explanation of miscommunication, change of CA, and personal health issues, and the Revenue's contention of consistent non-compliance. 2. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 68 (unexplained cash credit of Rs. 2,49,61,731/-) and Section 37(1) (disallowance of 50% of interest on unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 3,37,500/-) are valid. 3. Whether the interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 1,93,894/-, Rs. 81,43,548/-, and Rs. 1,37,830/- respectively, should be deleted. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the delay was not intentional but due to bonafide reasons and miscommunication. They also sought to admit additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, citing COVID-19 disruptions and issues with their Chartered Accountant. The assessee contended that the additions under Section 68 and Section 37(1) were incorrect and that the interest charges were unwarranted. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue argued against condonation of delay, citing the assessee's consistent non-compliance. They relied on the orders of the authorities below and objected to the admission of additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 37(1),Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Thakurdesai/Shri Vyankatesh Joshi
For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 25.08.2025Pronounced: 21.11.2025

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, 4. Mumbai गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 5.

BY ORDER,

1.

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai A.Y. 2018-19 Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A.Y. 2018-19) Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Ramsmruti Bungalow, Station बनाम Income Tax – 1 Road, Near DNS Bank, Kalyan Income Tax Office, Ambernath East – 421 501, Kalyan – 421 301, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AKGPP2867C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Ashish Thakurdesai/Shri Vyankatesh Joshi Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 09.07.2024 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 A.Y. 2018-19 Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 02.09.2021 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:-

1. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,49,61,731/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition to the income of the appellant u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 a sum of Rs. 3,37,500 i.e. 50% of the interest paid on account of on unsecured loans.

3. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have deleted interest charged of Rs. 1,93,894/-u/s 234A, Rs.81,43,548/- u/s 234B and Rs. 137,830/-u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. At the outset, it is noticed that the instant appeal is delayed by 137.In this regard, an application has been made alongwith an affidavit of the assessee requesting for condonation of the delay. It is submitted that he received notices from CIT(A), which were forwarded to the Chartered Accountant’s email ID. Meanwhile, he had left the firm and had handed over the work to one of the associate CA Sri Vyankatesh Joshi. His emails were not received by this CA due to some miscommunication and none of the notices sent by the CIT(A) could be responded to. He approached some other consultants which consumed further time leading to the delay. However, during this time, he A.Y. 2018-19 Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar underwent angioplasty and was admitted to hospital which caused further delay. It is submitted that there was no deliberateness in filing appeal belatedly and deeply regret the delay which occurred under the circumstances mentioned above. The ld.DR has vehemently argued that the assessee does not deserve any condonation as he has been consistently non compliant before all the authorities.

4.

On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the present appeal was not intentional but due to certain misunderstanding and miscommunication and appears to be a case of bonafide mistake although some element of lack of seriousness to pursue the proceedings is noticed. But we do appreciate that rejection of the request for condonation may cause genuine hardship to the assessee. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon’ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late……..Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated….Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil A.Y. 2018-19 Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period…. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.”Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee.

5.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of real estate, filed his return of income for the year declaring total income of Rs. 2,22,35,320/-.His Return was selected for scrutiny. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was requested to furnish details with regard various aspects of the case. Despite affording multiple opportunities to the assessee, he failed to provide any relevant details regarding the same. Thus, he was assessed u/s 143(3)/144B of the Act at Rs. 4,79,49,572/-by making various additions u/s 68 ,section 115BBE etc.

6.

In the subsequent appeal, as per the appellate order notices the assessee did not file any response/written submissions in spite of 10notices issued to him to substantiate its claim and rebut the finding of the AO. All the notices had been duly delivered through email as A.Y. 2018-19 Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar provided by the assessee on ITBA Portal. Therefore, the appeal was decided on materials available on record and in the absence of any reply from the assessee, the additions made by the AO were upheld dismissing the appeal with the observations that he was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

7.

Before us, the ld.AR has submitted that during assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce certain documentary evidence due to the unprecedented disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. He was unable to access necessary records within the prescribed time owing to lockdown restrictions, dislocation of staff, and limited functioning of offices during that period. At the appellate stage before the ld.CIT(A), the appellant had entrusted the matter to his Chartered Accountant. However, due to the resignation of the concerned employee who was handling the scrutiny assessment and was familiar with the case records, the CA office could not attend to and properly place the relevant evidence before the ld. CIT(A). This lapse was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. a request has been made to admit certain additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. The ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and objected to the admission of additional evidences and also condonation of delay.

A.Y. 2018-19 Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar 8. We find that the appellate order has also been passed in ex- parte manner on account of non-compliance by the assessee and none of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal involved have been adjudicated. Consequently, the ld.CIT(A) could not evaluate the points of consideration so as to give his own decision on objective analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Considering the entirety of the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of principles of natural justice and fair play, we consider it appropriate to send the entire matter back to the file of the AO in the light of above discussion, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to advance his arguments and submissions before him so as to provide details in connection with the merits of the case. We also grant liberty to the assessee to file any additional evidence, if so desired by him. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order and restore the entire matter back to the ld.AO for passing the assessment order de novo after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee who is also directed to attend the assessment proceedings before the AO without fail and cooperate with him in furnishing relevant details etc. as sought by him. 9.1 However, we find that the assessee did not properly attend the assessment or the appellate proceedings though it was expected of A.Y. 2018-19 Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar him to pursue the proceedings in right earnest and cooperate with the Revenue authorities. Some element of casualness and indifference to towards statutory duties are palpable here.Therefore, we consider it fit to impose a cost of Rs 25,000/- which will be paid to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within 15 days of the receipt of this order and a copy of the challan needs to be produced before the AO during assessment proceedings without fail. 9.2 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by him independently and in accordance with law.

10.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/11/2025.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →