MARIA KURESH RAJKOTWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

PER RATNA DASGPUTA, AM

The captioned appeal by the assessee arises from order dated 07/01/2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 - hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for A.Y. 2013-14, raising following grounds of appeal ;-

Maria Kuresh Rajkotwala 2 ITA No. 2668/MUM/2026

i. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O in not carrying out the proceedings u/s 148A in a faceless manner as prescribed u/s 144B of the Act and as prescribed in the "Faceless jurisdiction of IT Authority Scheme 2022" and the e- assessment of the income escaping assessment scheme 2022" notifies on 29 March 2022, Therefore the assessment is without jurisdiction and therefore bad in law.

iii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an exparte order on the ground that the appellant failed to attach grounds of appeal and statement of facts along with form no 35 without even appreciating the fact that the same were duly attached and filed with form no 35. iv. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITA erred in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O in reopening the assessment without jurisdiction on the following ground. a. The learned AO erred in reopening the assessment without considering that no notice u/s 148 could be issued beyond three years on or after 1st April 2021 if such notice could not have been issued at that time under the un amended provisions of the law and thus, the requirements of section 149 are not satisfied in the assessee’s case. b. The learned assessing officer erred in reopening the assessment beyond 3 years from the end of assessment year without specifying any specific asset of the value of Rs. 50 lacs or more which represents the allegedly escaped income.

Maria Kuresh Rajkotwala 3 ITA No. 2668/MUM/2026

c. The learned assessing officer erred in reopening the assessment on borrowed satisfaction without considering the recommendation given in the letter from the investigation wing recommends to make enquiry u/s 133(6) prior to issue of notice under section 148 as per the latest SOP issued by the CBDT. d. The learned assessing officer erred in reopening the assessment only to conduct certain enquiry and verification as clearly and specifically mentioned in the notice u/s 148A(b) and order u/s 148A(d).

v. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming A.O's action in making addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- solely on the basis of the letter from investigation wing and without considering the fact that all the notices issued u/s 142(1) and 144 were duly responded and all the details as required by the learned AO were duly filed by the assesses. vi. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in disregarding the documentary proofs submitted by the assessee to show the genuineness of transactions including external evidences including confirmation, Evidence of adequate Net worth (Financial Statements) and ITR from the alleged party and making addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- based on surmises and conjectures. vii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the Id. A.O's action in not providing any statement or the copy of the notice as 133(6) recorded to the party along with the response received in spite the fact that the assesses specifically requested the copy of the said documents and thus violating the principle of natural justice.

Maria Kuresh Rajkotwala 4 ITA No. 2668/MUM/2026

viii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O in not providing an opportunity to the assesses to cross-examine the alleged in spite of the requests by the assesses for the same. ix. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O in making addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- u/s 68 without considering the fact that the show-cause notice was given for addition u/s 69A not for section 68. x. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds and all grounds are without prejudice to one another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short “Ld. AO”) had initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of information received by him that the assessee had received accommodation entry of Rs. 55,00,000/- during the year under consideration. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was, accordingly, issued on 23/07/2022. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO found that the assessee had received unsecured loan of Rs. 55,00,000/- from M/s Decent Vincom Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, as stated, could not prove the creditworthiness of the aforesaid company because of which the Ld. AO treated the amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee.

Maria Kuresh Rajkotwala 5 ITA No. 2668/MUM/2026

2.1 Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by filing Form-35 on 26/06/2023. It transpires from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that despite opportunities granted, the assessee remained non-compliant to successive notices issued on 20/09/2024, 19/02/2025 and 26/11/2025. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that although in Form-35 the assessee had mentioned that the grounds of appeal were as per attachment, no such attachment had actually been submitted. He further noted that no statement of facts had been submitted by the appellant. In view of the same, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal, observing as under:

“As discussed above, no grounds of appeal and statement of fact has been submitted by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, several opportunities were provided to the appellant to furnish submission in support of her appeal filed. But the appellant failed to comply…It is crystal clear that appellant has been granted several opportunities to represent her case during the appellate proceedings but the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal filed. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove that the facts and the findings of the Assessing Officer are incorrect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee and others [1979] 10 CTR 354 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal, means effectively pursuing it.”

Maria Kuresh Rajkotwala 6 ITA No. 2668/MUM/2026

Maria Kuresh Rajkotwala 7 ITA No. 2668/MUM/2026

assessee is also directed to fully co-operate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and furnish all relevant information/documents which are called for and which she would like to rely on in support of her claims.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/09/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (RATNA DASGPUTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 16/09/2026 Z.U., P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER,

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai