SAVERA CONSTRUCTION CO,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2577/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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?

Section 147,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Soneji, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.07.2026

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.

2.

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.

4.

Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before

learned first appellate authority.

5.

In the meanwhile, the A.O. also passed an order imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of

the Act.

6.

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.

7.

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

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →