CHANDRAKANT BABALDAS PATEL,PATAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), dated 17.02.2026, relating to Assessment Year 2013-14.

At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no addition has been made by the Assessing Officer for the year under consideration. On perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, it is also evident that the assessee has not agitated against any addition made / sustained by the lower authorities. All the grounds raised by the assessee are general in nature. The assessee is not aggrieved of any addition made or sustained by any of the lower authorities.

Therefore, there is no adjudicable ground arising in the present appeal. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous and, consequently, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment orders, in the course of which notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued by the Assessing Officer and consequently the impugned penalties were levied on account of non-compliance of the said notices, were not passed by the Assessing Officer ex parte against the assessee by way of best judgement assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee preferred appeals against the said assessment orders. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals so preferred by the assessee on the ground that the same were barred by limitation, as there was considerable delay in filing the appeals. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the matter subsequently came up for consideration before the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. It was submitted before the Tribunal that the assessment orders as well as the penalty orders were not communicated to the assessee through his mobile number or e-mail ID. It was further submitted that the assessee’s Income Tax e-filing portal was being operated/controlled by his employer, Shri Kamlesh Rajnikant Shah, who was then preoccupied with the treatment of his wife, as she was suffering from

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submissions that the assessee was not aware of the issuance/service of any notices under section 142(1) of the Act and, therefore, the non-compliance of the said notices before the Assessing Officer was neither deliberate nor intentional. Since the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, considering the aforesaid submissions and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, has already condoned the delay in filing the appeals against the assessment orders, in the course of which the alleged non-compliance of the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act had occurred and the impugned penalties had been levied, we are of the considered view that the levy of the impugned penalties cannot be held to be justified. Accordingly, the impugned penalties levied by the Assessing Officer are hereby set aside. These appeals of the assessee stands allowed.

In the combined result, in ITA No. 5011/Mum/2026 is hereby dismissed, whereas in ITA Nos. 6397, 6398, 6554,6555,6556, 6557, 6558, 6559, 6560/ Mum/2026 are hereby stands allowed.