ASHOK MADANLALJI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

The registry informed that the appeal was filed with a delay of 150 days. The assessee filed the condonation petition along with a copy of the notarized affidavit, duly sworn by the assessee himself on dated 05.08.2026. The relevant part of the Assessee's submission in the affidavit is reproduced as below: “4. I say that, due to the lack of knowledge, I am not at all versed with the online portal of the Income Tax Department through which notices and orders are communicated electronically. Consequently; I was unaware of the various notices issued by the Income Tax Department from time to time during the course of the scrutiny proceedings, as the same were received electronically and escaped my notice. Further. no physical communication was also sent to me regarding the same. As a result, the assessment came to be completed ex-parte under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. I say that, somewhere in the first week of March, 2024 while checking the income tax portal, my tax return filing consultant informed me that an assessment order seems to have been passed in my case on an ex-parte basis. Upon becoming aware of theassessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act. 1 immediately sought advice from the said tax consultant. He informed me that no notices had been received by him through email. He also, advised me to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after taking advice from a Chartered Accountant in the matter. 6. I say that, on the basis of the said advice we consulted a Chartered Accountant and got the appeal drafted from him and got it filed though our tax consultant. I further say that. in Form 35 the email ID mentioned was aefpj2718d@yahoo.com which was provided the said consultant himself. The said email-ID as could be seen appears to be some PAN number and the said PAN does not belong to me. Our tax consultant had assured me that he would keep track of all future notices and communications in the matter. 7. I say that, thereafter, to my utter surprise, my bank account was attached by the Income Tax Department on 21.03.2026. On coming to know of this through my bank, I came to know for the first time on 21.03.2026 that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had already passed an ex-parte appellate order dated 21.08.2025. I further say that, in Form 35 the email ID mentioned aefpj2718d@yahoo.com, is of some other person that does not belong to the Appellant, it was provided by the Chartered Accountant/Consultant. Further, the said email ID was issued by the Consultant and I (the Appellant) had no control over the same and therefore could not respond to the same. 8. I say that, immediately on receiving the attachment letter and intimation from the bank for the same, I sought advice of and thereafter, appointed a new tax consultant, who, upon examining the records of the case, advised me to prefer the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal without any further delay. Thereafter, under his advice, the present appeal was prepared and filed at the earliest possible opportunity. 9. I say that the delay of about 152 days in filing the present appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but has occurred due to the bona fide circumstances stated hereinabove and for reasons beyond my control.”

The Ld. AR contended that a reasonable ground for the delay in filing the appeal was duly placed through this condonation petition and notarized affidavit. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submission of the Assessee. So, we find that there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 150 days, and the appeal is taken up for adjudication.

We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The assessee had not filed the return u/s 139(1). The Ld. AO got the information that the assessee had purchased an immovable property amounting to Rs. 88 lakhs and sold the immovable property amounting to Rs. 49 lakhs, commission and brokerage earned Rs. 23,833/- and interest other than interest on securities earned Rs. 45,601/-. The Ld. AO had initiated the reassessment proceedings. During the reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO had issued notices on different occasions. But the assessee had failed to comply with any of the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Finally, the Ld. AO confirmed the addition amounting to Rs. 33,40,000/- u/s 69 of the Act, on account of short-term capital gain amounting to Rs. 49 lakh, commission income Rs. 23,774/- and interest amounting to Rs. 45,601/- which comes to a total amount of Rs. 83,09,375/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee also failed to comply in any of the notices. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte and upheld the impugned addition. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us.

The Ld. AR argued and contended that the reasons for non-appearance before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are the lack of communication with the tax consultant of the assessee. In the affidavit, the assessee had already explained the delay as well as the non-compliance before the revenue authorities. The Ld. AR prayed to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo.

The Ld. DR argued and contended that the assessee had filed the appeal with a delay of 150 days as well as before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had not appeared and not complied any of the notices. The assessee is habitual defaulter for non-complying any of the authorities below. The Ld. DR further contended that the assessee had failed to file any return u/s 139 & in compliance with the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Considering that, the Ld. DR has proposed to impose the cost for the assessee.

In our considered view, we heard the rival submissions and perusal the materials available on record. It is an admitted position emerging from the re- assessment order that the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices during the re-assessment proceedings and consequently, the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence despite opportunity granted during appellate proceeding and, accordingly, the appeal was disposed off on basis of available record. Thus, substantially, the issues raised by the assessee have not received adjudication after effective participation by assessee at either stage.

At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the conduct of the assessee. The record demonstrated the repetitive non-compliance during assessment proceeding as well as lack of effective prosecution of first appeal. The principle of natural justice confers the right of reasonable opportunity, but such right necessarily carries a corresponding obligation upon liability to remain diligent and to cooperate in proceedings. The remand cannot be permitted to operate as an encouragement for repetitive defaults.

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the assessment was framed ex parte and the first appellate proceedings also culminated without effective representation by assessee. We deem it appropriate, without expressing any view on merits of any of the grounds raised by assessee to grant one final opportunity, so, that the issues may be adjudicated after considering relevant evidence and submissions. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the entire appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

However, considering the repetitive defaults attributable to the assessee, the aforesaid restoration shall be subject to payment of cost, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for this appeal. The assessee is directed to deposit the said cost within two months from the date of receipt of this order under the appropriate “Other Head” of the Income Tax Department, and furnish the proof of such payment before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter, proceed to adjudicate the appeal afresh on all grounds raised by the assessee, both legal as well as on merits, after considering the evidence and submissions placed on record and in accordance with law.

Nevertheless, to say the Ld. CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee is directed to remain diligent and cooperate with appellate proceedings, file the requisite documents/evidence within the time permitted and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. We have not expressed any opinion on merit of the reassessment proceedings and all such issues are left open for adjudication by the CIT(A) in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 3735/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th day of September 2026.