KARMIK RAVI VARMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4982/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal without affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was remanded for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 14,44,916/- on account of salary income. The Assessee appealed this addition, stating that a return was not required as income was below the exemption limit and advance tax was not payable.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal was rightly dismissed for non-filing of return and non-payment of advance tax without providing a hearing. The necessity of affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard before dismissing an appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI JAGDISH

For Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, SR. D.R
Hearing: 24.07.2026Pronounced: 24.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC)”, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI JAGDISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4982/M/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Karmik Ravi Varma, Income Tax Officer, 401, Roayal Resort, Shastri Ward 16(1)(1), Nagar, Andheri West, Azad Aaykar Bhavan, near Vs. Nagar, S.O. Mumbai, Churchgate Station, Maharashtra - 400053. Maharshi Karve Road, PAN – AEMPV7404B Churchgate, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Jayshree Thakur, SR. D.R.

Date of Hearing : 24.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the ASSESSEE against the order dated 24.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 29.06.2019 passed under section 147 read with section 144

ITA No. 4982/M/2026 2 Karmik Ravi Varma

of the Act, made an addition of Rs.14,44,916/- on account of salary income received by the Assessee.

3.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. In Form No. 35, while replying to the question, “Where no return has been filed by the appellant for the assessment year, whether an amount equal to the amount of advance tax payable as per section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been paid?”, the Assessee clearly stated, “NOT APPLICABLE”.

However, the Ld. Commissioner, considering that the Assessee had neither filed the return of income nor paid the amount of advance tax allegedly payable by him, held that the appeal is not liable to be admitted. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal by treating the same as infructuous.

4.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessee submitted before the Ld. Commissioner that he was neither required to file the return of income, as his income was below the basic exemption limit, nor liable to pay any advance tax. We further observe that the Ld. Commissioner, before dismissing the appeal in limine, also failed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, as is clearly evident from the impugned order. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.

5.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh. Suffice it to say that the Assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

ITA No. 4982/M/2026 3 Karmik Ravi Varma

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (JAGDISH) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANKIT SWARNKAR) Private Secretary Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// 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 →