SAVERA CONSTRUCTION CO,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THANE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities were not justified in making additions without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. The claim that the income was offered under a different PAN needed examination. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside for de novo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm, did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer, based on information of a property sale, reopened the assessment and made additions ex parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed the income was disclosed under a different PAN which had been surrendered.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeals were dismissed ex parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and whether the assessee's claim of disclosing income under a different PAN warranted examination.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President:
Captioned appeals by the assessee arise out of two separate orders passed by
National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y.
for short) 2016-17.
ITA No. 2577/Mum/2026 arises out of quantum proceedings, whereas, ITA No.
2580/Mum/2026 is against imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). The basic grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal
of the appeals by learned first appellate authority without providing adequate opportunity
of being heard.
2 ITA Nos. 2577 & 2580/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2016-17) Savera Construction Co. vs. Asst. CIT 3. Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record, it is
noticed that the assessee is a partnership firm. As stated by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for
short), the assessee did not file any return of income for the assessment year under dispute.
However, based on information received in the INSIGHT portal of the department, the
A.O. found that in the year under consideration the assessee had sold an immovable
property for a consideration of Rs.67,25,000/-. Based on such information, the A.O.
reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. As observed by A.O., though various statutory
notices were issued to the assessee from time to time, however, the assessee failed to
comply even to a single notice. Thus, ultimately, the A.O. proceeded to complete the
assessment ex parte to the best of his judgement. While doing so, he added back the alleged
sale consideration received of Rs.67,25,000/- as short term capital gain. On completion of
assessment, the A.O. also initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of
the Act for concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before
learned first appellate authority.
In the meanwhile, the A.O. also passed an order imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of
the Act.
The assessee challenged the order imposing penalty before learned first appellate
authority. However, both the appeals were dismissed by learned first appellate authority
through decision taken ex parte in absence of assessee. It is the say of the assessee before
us that income has been disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed under a
different Permanent Accountant Number (‘PAN’ for short). Whereas, it is submitted, the
3 ITA Nos. 2577 & 2580/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2016-17) Savera Construction Co. vs. Asst. CIT PAN in which the assessment order has been passed had been surrendered by the assessee
earlier. If this be the factual position, in our view, the departmental authorities were not
justified in making the addition without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to
assessee. In case, the assessee had offered the income, which is subject matter of challenge
in the present proceedings, in a return of income filed under a different PAN, such fact is
required to be examined without dismissing assessee’s appeal at the threshold. Since,
neither of the authorities have factually examined assessee’s claim that the disputed
addition has been offered to tax, in a return of income filed using a different PAN, we are
inclined to set aside the impugned orders of learned first appellate authority and restore the
issues back to his file for de novo adjudication after providing due and reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The primary reason for restoring the issue to
learned first appellate authority is, there is no clarity in the order of learned first appellate
authority as to whether the assessee was provided reasonable opportunity of being heard
before deciding the appeals. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned orders of
learned first appellate authority are set aside with a direction for de novo adjudication of
the issues.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2026 Sd/- Sd/-
(Girish Agrawal) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President
Mumbai; Dated : 27.07.2026 Roshani, Sr. PS
4 ITA Nos. 2577 & 2580/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2016-17) Savera Construction Co. vs. Asst. CIT
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
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 →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026