GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3785/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SMT.RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided an email address for notices, the CIT(A) sent notices to a different email address. Although some notices were also sent to the correct address, the assessee argued non-compliance due to the misdirection. Considering the delay and the undertaking of the assessee to be more vigilant, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against the order of the CIT(A) confirming additions made by the AO. The assessee claims the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording a fair opportunity, despite the assessee filing an adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a fair opportunity to the assessee, and if the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 36(1)(iii),Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dated 16.06.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“Following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other;

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing order u/s 250 of the Act and confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact by not appreciating that the Ld. A.O. Ld. A.O. has passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act which is invalid and bad in the eyes of law.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,21,84,500/- made by Ld. A.O. on account of unsecured loans received by appellant during the year as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance made by Ld. A.O. on account of interest expenditure of Rs. 14,86,669/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.

5 The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.”

2. Rival submissions of the parties have been recorded and record perused. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that CIT(A) passed the exparte order without allowing fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) issued 5 show cause notices us 250 for fixing hearing. However, cc copy of two notices were / sent to email provided on form 35. Such notices could not be traced in the email box of email prescribed on Form 35. The assessee filed adjournment application in response to notice issued on 16/05/2025. The Ld.CIT(A), instead of allowing further time, passed the order within 4 days from application for adjournment. The Ld.AR submits that assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity to contest the appeal before CIT(A) is allowed. He undertook on behalf of assessee to be vigilant in future in making timely compliances. The partner of the firm has filed affidavit narrating circumstance for non compliance. The Ld.AR prayed for restoring the matter to the file of CIT(A.

3.

The Ld. CIT - DR for the revenue submits that assessee is a habitual defaulter in making timely compliance. Even before AO, the assessee has not furnished complete details. The assessee does not deserve any opportunity or leniency from the bench.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that while filing appeal before CIT(A), in form 35, the assessee provided email address ‘ashsihpatel110@yahoo’ for the purpose of notices for communication by CIT(A). However, the Ld.CIT(A) issued notice on other email i.e. “industrialgeneral@yahoo.in”. No doubt, copy of two notices were also sent on the email provided on Form 35. The assessee has filed affidavit before us about the circumstances leading to non compliance. In the para 7 of affidavit, the partner of assessee has stated that when its chartered accountant visited the IT portal in December, 2023, to verify the status of appeal, he found that various notices were issued on various dates between 2020 to 2023 and only two notices in 2022 were marked to the email mentioned in Form 35. Such email could not be traced in email box. In response to notice issued on 7/12/2023, the assessee made application for adjournment and in response to further notice dated 02/05/2025, the assessee made request for adjournment of two weeks. However, the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order within 4 days. Considering the fact that appeal of assessee was pending since 2020 and considering the fact that CIT(A) passed the order for want of non compliance and now the Ld.AR of the assessee has undertaken before us to be vigilant in making timely compliance, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of CIT(A) to pass the order afresh The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance. Needless to mention that before passing the order, the CIT(A) shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the result, ground of appeal

is allowed for statistical purpose.

5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in the open Court on /09/2025.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →