RUNA VISHAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(3)(2), MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYRuna Vishal Shah, Block No.3, Veer Building, Tagore Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai.
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13/03/2025 impugned herein passed by the ADDL/JCIT
(Appeals)-1, Chennai (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2
2. In this case, the AO vide assessment order dated 29/12/2018
u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, has made the additions of Rs.
7,45,920/- on account of ‘sale proceeds of the shares u/sec. 68 of the Act and Rs. 22,377/- on account of ‘commission @ 30% on sale proceeds u/sec. 69C of the Act.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, with the said additions, filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. Admittedly, the Assessee mentioned email address in Form 35 as vhmalde@hotmail.com, however, Ld. Commissioner issued notices to the Assessee for the appellate proceedings, at the email address vishalmalde79@gmai.com, which resulted into non-compliance by the Assessee. Therefore, Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee for non-prosecution and/or in limini, without going into the merits of the case, which is not permissible, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under: -
“This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act."
Hence, this Court, by considering the fact that the notice was sent to wrong email and respectfully following the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, is inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits of the case. 3
The Assessee has submitted following details for sending notices, communications etc.:
Address
:
3, Veer Building, Tagore Road,
Santacruz West,
Mumbai- 400054
Email ID
:
vishalmalde79@gmail.com
Phone No. :
98339 80896
The Assessee is also directed to update the aforesaid details/latest address, telephone number, email address etc. on ITBA portal and in the record of JAO and the Ld. Commissioner.
Thus, this appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER vr/-
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai.
The DR, ITAT, Mumbai ‘SMC’ Bench
////
By Order
Dy./