NAVNATH SAKHARAM GHONE,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KALYAN, KALYAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the Ld. Commissioner due to the incorrect email communication. Therefore, the case was remanded for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an order passed by the NFAC. The NFAC had issued notices to incorrect email IDs of the assessee, leading to the assessee's non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-appearance before the Ld. Commissioner due to incorrect email notices and if the case should be remanded.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH :: MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03/01/2025 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12.
(Navnath Sakharam Ghone) 2. It appears from the impugned order that before deciding the appeal filed against the assessment order dated 28/12/2018 u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, whereby the addition of Rs. 35.00 Lac has been made, as demonstrated by the learned counsel for the Assessee from Form No.35, that the Ld. Commissioner sent the notice on email IDs i.e. yarngodown1.tpr2@bombayrayon.com and navnathghone10@ gmail.com, which does not belongs to the Assessee, as the Assessee in Form no. 35 has mentioned the e-mail ID as navnathghone1@gmail.com and, therefore, there seems to be inadvertently mistake or overlooking the facts, in issuing the notice to the Assessee though e-mail.
Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not refute the said facts.
Considering the facts, as demonstrated by the learned counsel for the Assessee, there appears to be a reasonable cause for non- appearance before the Ld. Commissioner. Thus, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued and update the email ID, telephone number and address before the Tribunal and ITBA portal and the Ld. Commissioner, as well. This Court clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09.09.2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
